stakeholder analysis for the mrc basin development ... · stakeholder analysis for the mrc basin...
TRANSCRIPT
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR THE MRC
BASIN DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAMME
PHASE 2 (BDP2)
Complementary document to the Stakeholder Participation and
Communication Plan for the Basin Development Planning in the
Lower Mekong Basin
FINAL REPORT
Updated version,
March 2010
Acknowledgments
The Mekong River Commission and the Basin Development Plan programme
Phase 2 would like to thank the National Mekong Committees and the
national line agencies of the four member countries; partner organizations;
research institutes, academia, civil society organizations and individuals for
their valuable input and active participation in the development of this
document. The MRC also would like to expresses its gratitude for the
generous support of our Development Partners: the Danish International
Development Agency (DANIDA), the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAid).
The opinions and interpretations expressed within are those of stakeholders and authors do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Mekong River Commissions.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADI Analyzing Development Issues
AIT Asians Institute of Technology
ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations
BDP Basin Development Plan
CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development
CBNRM-LI Community Based Natural Resource Management Learning
Initiative
CCC Cooperation Committee of Cambodia
CDRI Cambodia Development Resources Institute
CEPA Culture and Environment Preservation Association
CED Community Economic Development
CEDAC Cambodian Centre for Study and Development in Agriculture
CF Community Forestry
CFD Community Fisheries Division
CFs Community Fisheries
CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research
CNMC Cambodia National Mekong Committee
CODE Consultancy for Development
CPRGS Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
CVS Cambodian Volunteer Service
CWP Cambodia Water Partnership
Danida Danish International Development Agency
DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
DFID Department for International Development
DIW District Integration Workshop
DOLA Department for Local Administration
DOSTE Department of Science and Technology
FACT Fisheries Action Coalition Team
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FiA Fisheries Administration
FWUCs Farmer Water Users Association
GMS Greater Mekong Sub-region
GMSARN GMS Academic and Research Network
HU Health Unlimited
IDRC International Development Research Center
IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
INGOs International non-governmental organizations
IR International River
IWMI International Water Management Institute
IWRM Integrated water resources management
IUCN World Conservation
JC Joint Committee
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MIME Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy
MOI Ministry of Interior
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRC Mekong River Commission
MRWD Mekong Region Water Dialogues programme
MVOPS Moving Out of Poverty
MWBP Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity and Sustainable Use Programme
M-POWER Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience
MOE Ministry of Environment (MOE)
MOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology
NHRC National Human Right Committee
NLCS National League of Commune Councils and Sangkat
NMCs National Mekong Committees
NOGs Non-governmental organizations
NSDP National Strategic Development Plan
NWAP National Wetland Action Plan
ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and
Planning
PA Participatory Protected Areas Management
PIMD Participatory Irrigation Management and Development
PLUP Participatory Land Use Planning
PRDC Provincial Rural Development Committee
PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SPCP Stakeholder Participation and Communication Plan
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
RCC Rivers Coalition in Cambodia
RCG Royal Government of Cambodia
RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the
Pacific
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
SRI System of Rice Intensification
TEAN The Environmental Activist Network
TEI Thai Environment Institute
TERRA Toward Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance
TSBA Tonle Sap Basin Authority
TWG Technical Working Group
TWGFSN Technical Working Group for Food Security and Nutrition
TWGAW Technical Working Group on Agriculture and Water
TWGF Technical Working Group on Fisheries
VACNE Vietnam Association for Conservation of Nature & Environment
VRN Vietnam Rivers Network
WARECOD Center for Water Resources Conservation and Development
WATSAN Water and Sanitation Projects
WRMRCDP Water Resources Management Research Capacity Development
Programme
WSC Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
WWF World Wildlife Fund
i
TABLE of CONTENT
1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Focus of this Assessment and Report ................................................................. 1
1.2 Outline of the Report ............................................................................................ 4
2. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS: Summary of Main Issues ................................. 6
2.1 Summary of Main Issues ...................................................................................... 6
3. SUMMARY of ORGANZATIONAL REFORM: MRC Self-Analysis .......... 20
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Overview of the Perspectives within MRC – MRCS, Programmes,
NMCs and Governments ................................................................................... 21
3.3 Overview of the Perspectives of Civil Society Stakeholders ......................... 23
3.4 Summary –Potential for Organization Reform ............................................... 25
4. OVERVIEW of MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 27
4.1 Key Points ............................................................................................................ 27
4.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 28
SECTION II: Countries Analysis ..................................................................................... 39
5. CAMBODIA ............................................................................................................ 39
5.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................... 39
5.2 National Planning, IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Cambodia ........ 42
5.3 Summary of Assignment in Cambodia ............................................................ 47
5.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis .............................. 48
5.5 Recommendations (Cambodia) ......................................................................... 53
6. LAO PDR ................................................................................................................. 56
6.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................... 56
6.2 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Lao PDR ........... 56
6.3 Summary of Assignment in Lao PDR .............................................................. 62
6.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis .............................. 62
ii
6.5 Recommendations (Lao PDR) ........................................................................... 65
7. THAILAND ............................................................................................................. 69
7.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................... 69
7.2 Summary of Assignment in Thailand .............................................................. 70
7.3 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Thailand ........... 71
7.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis .............................. 74
7.5 Recommendations (Thailand) ........................................................................... 78
8. VIET NAM ............................................................................................................... 82
8.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................... 82
8.2 Summary of Assignment in Viet Nam ............................................................. 83
8.3 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Viet Nam .......... 84
8.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis .............................. 89
8.5 Recommendations (Viet Nam) .......................................................................... 91
SECTION III: Regional Stakeholders ............................................................................ 94
9. REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................... 94
9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 94
REFERNCES ......................................................................................................................... 95
1
SECTION I: Overview of issues and recommendations
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Focus of this Assessment and Report
The MRC began developing its approach to stakeholder participation in the
late 1990s, shortly after the signing of the 1995 Agreement. In 1998 the MRC
produced the booklet, Public Participation in the Lower Mekong Basin, but
implementation of public participation in the MRC has been stalled until the
new initiatives under the Basin Development Plan began in 2008.
This report is a supplement to the Stakeholder Participation and
Communication Plan (SPCP) that has been in preparation since early 2008,
and is now being finalized (as of March 2009). The objectives of this
assessment were refined to better understand existing participation
mechanisms and prioritize key stakeholders for BDP process, with the
following key tasks:
Review policy and institutional context for IWRM in the four
countries to assess opportunities for stakeholder participation;
Compile an inventory and institutional appraisal of key and
influential civil society stakeholders;
Prepare recommendations on how BDP can strengthen stakeholder
participation in each of the countries.
The scope of this assignment has been adjusted slightly during its
implementation. The original focus was very much on the BDP but it has
become clear that it is often difficult to separate the BDP from the MRC as a
whole.
The main focus of this assignment has been on civil society which includes in
many different types within its community groups such as international
organizations, and international, national and local NGOs. Of which, whom
of these are embedded within their different interests in international,
national and local contexts and issues. As short timeframe for this assignment
did not allow including assessment on other groups such as private sector,
beside this, civil society has proved most difficult for the MRC to engage
with, and because there are already existing mechanisms to address donors,
media and private sector. Through this work on civil society participation the
2
attention has also been on strengthen participation of affected people. While
recognizing the diversity of civil society
across the Mekong, their major areas of
interest can broadly be summarized as being
in social development and environmental
management.
The concept of stakeholder participation is
central to civil society engagement in both
thematic areas, with major advances in
applying participatory approaches over recent years.
For this mission we have used a broad definition of civil society – focusing on
NGOs, INGOs, international organizations, research institutions etc but also
considering how through this kind of network MRC might better reach to the
broader population, particularly those who tend to be most easily excluded
from consultation processes. We have also considered the policy context that
supports local people to organize themselves as managers of their resource
base – for example, in Community Fisheries, Community Forestry, Water
User Associations, Village Health Volunteers, WATSAN– and the existing
opportunities for these kinds of resource user networks to engage in planning
processes. However, our interviews and discussions have been with NGOs,
research centres and academics and how by working primarily at this level,
the MRC might be able to reach a wider audience of stakeholders. It was
decided that the media would be left to other sections within MRC.
By taking the MRC’s overall vision and mission as the starting point for
identifying stakeholders and common areas of interest, there are clearly many
types of civil society organizations that could be considered legitimate
stakeholders in a regional process that supports sustainable and equitable
development of the basin’s water resources. From the perspective of IWRM,
the main objectives of water resource management are in terms of poverty
reduction (including ensuring food security), with a requirement for sectoral
integration in planning and management. IWRM stakeholders therefore
include a wide range of diverse interests and potentially a wide range of
organizations with overlapping interests.
We have not been able to conduct assessment and consultation at the more
local level (such as the Sub-area level), but have instead attempted to identify
mechanisms whereby the MRCS and NMCs might develop this level of
stakeholder participation themselves as part of their routine engagement in
the Sub-areas.
While recognizing the diversity of
civil society across the Mekong,
their major areas of interest can
broadly be summarized as being in
social development and
environmental management.
3
The current effort under SPCP is very much a product of BDP – and is seen as
such within the MRC. Therefore this assignment focuses on the work of BDP.
In order to simplify the discussions with a range of stakeholders many of
whom are not familiar with the ways of working of the MRC, the focus of
discussions was on opportunities to strengthen stakeholder participation in
the core areas of work – assessments of change and impact from projects, and
dialogues, and on how stakeholders can engage with the formal institutional
structures established under the National Mekong Committees.
An important issue throughout this assignment has been to consider how
stakeholders – from the MRC, government and civil society – view each other,
and the quality of their current relationship, in order to better plan how
stakeholders might come together.
It soon became clear that very little is known about the other side, and as a
result there is a great deal of misunderstanding. In many cases, interviews
conducted under this assignment were the very first direct engagement
between stakeholders and the MRC, and as such were very much
appreciated. Any efforts at strengthening stakeholder participation must start
from this point – and first and foremost, work towards improved
understandings and building relationships to clarify the nature and purpose
of the participation.
Despite several attempts to strengthen stakeholder participation in the MRC
there still has not been a strategic approach that has been applied across the
institution. The need to improve stakeholder participation has been
repeatedly identified by donors and
institutional reviews as a priority for the
MRC (eg Hirsch and Morck Jensen 2006).
At the same time, external reviews have
also identified communications within the
MRC as an area in need of improvement.
Understanding civil society perceptions of
the MRC, whether they are correct or not, is important in order to be able to
engage effectively. The MRC has been subject to criticism for not
strengthening broader public participation in water resources governance,
and public criticism on many occasions regarding specific issues. Several
letters from civil society organizations have been submitted to the MRC – so
many of the concerns of these particular organizations have been clearly
spelled out. Reviews have argued that the MRC is regarded as distant and
inaccessible, and unresponsive to the needs of the weak (Hirsch and Morck
Jensen 2006). Others have argued that the MRC is weak and ineffective. To
Understanding civil society
perceptions of the MRC, whether
they are correct or not, is
important in order to be able to
engage effectively.
4
some degree, these kinds of perceptions still abound among civil society
stakeholders. (NB Similar criticisms have been articulated in the recently
launched, ‘Save the Mekong’ campaign). Given these perceptions there are
clearly significant challenges to the MRC being able to facilitate meaningful
participation with many sections of civil society.
A key concern regarding stakeholder participation within the MRC has been
how to reach a meaningful representation of the 60 million people from the
four member countries who rely on the resources of the Lower Mekong Basin.
Civil society organizations are regarded as a vehicle to reach the interests of
the wider population, particularly more marginalized groups. This also raises
some challenges regarding the degree to which NGOs can be representative
of wider interests, and the different overall objectives for engagement.
While NGOs cannot necessarily represent all the views and needs of affected
communities which is why and the engagement role of MRC to communities
should be increasing at times, the MRC will still need to work harder in order
to keep identifying and reach community groups and representatives for its
field assessment and consultation events. They too should be able to
participate in meetings and should be considered a key stakeholder; and can
share their own future vision of the Mekong Basin.
The MRC has not yet addressed how to deal
with difference of opinions and values among
stakeholders, how to deal with criticism and
how to generate at least some degree of
consensus. Inevitably, by opening up space for
stakeholder participation the MRC is opening
up space for criticism, as well as welcome inputs from stakeholders. With the
BDP taking the lead in much of the dialogue and consultation efforts of MRC,
it will be important to for the programme to reflect on this issue, and prepare
itself.
1.2 Outline of the Report
The report has been prepared in sections so that it can be easily divided for
some sections to be disseminated to audiences within the MRC, and other
sections to be disseminated for external audiences. Separate sections have
been prepared for each of the four countries.
The first section presents an overview of issues and recommendations. This
section is intended to synthesise the findings from the countries and present a
Civil society organizations are
regarded as a vehicle to reach the
interests of the wider
population, particularly more
marginalized groups.
5
discussion and set of recommendations that will be generally applicable to all
countries. This section is divided into three parts:
Summary of main issues;
Summary of organizational change;
Summary of main recommendations.
This section has been written with the expectation that it can be shared
widely.
While the main focus of this assignment has been on the national level, we
have also included a section considering some of the regional stakeholders.
As most of these stakeholders are well known to the MRC this section is
purposively brief.
The report then addresses the specific issues of the four counties – Cambodia,
Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. Each of these country sections follows the
same structure:
Introduction (including a summary of how the assignment was
carried out in each of the countries);
Summary of Stakeholder Organisations in each country;
National Planning, IWRM and Stakeholder Participation;
Discussion of issues arising from stakeholder analysis;
Opportunities;
Recommendations.
The report includes a bibliography of key references.
Additionally we have included an annex of a spreadsheet that provides a
summary of key stakeholder organisations. It is recommended that
development of this spreadsheet continues across the MRC and that it is
centrally managed and regularly updated. Given the role of BDP as an
umbrella programme it would make sense for this to be managed within
BDP.
6
2. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS:
Summary of Main Issues
2.1 Summary of Main Issues
This section provides a summary of the main issues that have arisen from the
stakeholder analysis. Purposively, it does not go into the details of the specific
individual countries as more detailed analysis by country is provided in the
national sections of the report.
There is a long history of a relationship of varying sorts between the MRC, its
programmes, the National Mekong Committees and a broad range of
stakeholders. Some of this experience seems to have been reasonably
successful, but most significantly the experience is rarely known beyond the
immediate project responsible or even the individual responsible for the
particular activity. There is no working database of stakeholder contacts, nor
a summary stakeholder interests and type of engagement. If the experience
goes back several years it is easily lost.
The nature of this relationship and mutual
perspectives of MRC and stakeholders varies
considerably across the four countries. In reviewing
the history of this relationship it is clear from the
position of MRC stakeholders, that there have been
ups and downs over time, but that there is
currently a sense of greater openness, and
consequently a spirit of goodwill. This puts the
MRC in a strong position to engage more
effectively in the near future. But this also creates
some pressure for the MRC to meet expectations
that in some cases may be unrealistically high and also for the MRC to
respond to some skepticism from civil society stakeholders that the current
commitment to stakeholder participation might be short-lived.
The landscape of civil society is changing rapidly across the region and within
each of the four countries. There is a growing number of local organizations
whether some type of NGO or academic/research institute, including in Laos
and Viet Nam. These organisations cover a wide range of interests –
particularly related to social development and environment – but not
necessarily directly related to IWRM.
It is clear from the
position of MRC
stakeholders, that there
have been ups and downs
over time, but that there
is currently a sense of
greater openness, and
consequently a spirit of
goodwill.
7
In each of the countries there are coordinating mechanisms among NGOs,
particularly International NGOs, and also among research organizations.
Many of these are organized around specific themes and issues of priority,
such as food security, climate change, agriculture
etc.
While there is no such theme organized around
IWRM per specifically, these provide valuable
mechanisms for the MRC to coordinate with a
broader constituency, to access up-to-date
information, and to elicit technical advice.
There is however a number of IWRM related initiatives at the regional and
national levels. In some cases the MRC and NMCs are directly involved in
these efforts, but this tends to be on a project engagement. Surprisingly there
does not seem to be a strategic approach to how these IWRM related efforts
could link with the MRC nor of how on-the-ground experience can inform the
work of the MRC.
Many projects within the MRC have conducted some kind of stakeholder
analysis as part of their preparatory phases for activities, but this has not
become routine across the organization. Stakeholder Analysis needs to be part
of the routine planning and M&E efforts of the MRC and NMCs at the
regional level, and in each of the four countries. The dynamic context in each
of the countries means that Stakeholder Analysis cannot be carried out as a
one-off activity. The huge diversity of local stakeholders, and the challenges
to identify and develop relationships
with these stakeholders, means that such
analysis must continue at the national
and sub-national levels. As the capacity
to engage stakeholders effectively must
be built within the MRCS and NMCs the
role of external consultants in carrying
out such analysis should be limited, with
the bulk of the work being the responsibility of MRCS and NMC staff.
Many of the issues that are of concern to civil society are highly contentious.
Constructive engagement on these issues needs to be carefully planned and
well facilitated so that dialogue can be open, and to avoid discussions being
trapped in accusations and counter accusations. There is serious concern that
despite good intentions there are overwhelming challenges to managing
consultation in such a way that a diversity of views might be freely
exchanged. Additionally, there is concern that even a well managed process
Stakeholder Analysis needs
to be part of the routine
planning and M&E efforts of
the MRC and NMCs at the
regional level, and in each of
the four countries.
As the capacity to engage
stakeholders effectively must be
built within the MRCS and NMCs
the role of external consultants in
carrying out such analysis should
be limited.
8
of participation and consultation might not generate consensus. In many of
those cases, it may not be realistic to see consensus as the desired outcome of
participation and consultation. Processes may involve negotiation,
compromise, mitigation or even compensation etc; but the achievement on
consensus might not be the case. An open-ended process with some following
up action can be an option in order to identify the knowledge gaps and learn
more about the needs stakehdolders. In some cases, consensus often simply
hides disagreement rather than dealing with it
properly.
There are many ways to view stakeholder
participation. Throughout the assessment that
carried out in MRC member countries, the
question from local NGOs arose of ‘what are
stakeholders participating in – and how will
this influence development decisions making?’ It is fundamentally important
that the MRC is able to explain what it is that the MRC does, and to convince
stakeholders that they are engaging a fruitful process that will deliver
tangible benefits.
For NGOs and many donors there is a belief that an engaged civil society is in
itself an indication of good development and governance reform. Civil society
is seen as providing space for greater public participation, the generation of
information and fresh ideas to contribute to the development and governance
process, as representing the voices of marginalized peoples, and acting as a
check and balance on the development process to address issues of
accountability, transparency and inequality.
Each of the countries has some experience of
stakeholder participation shaped by the
national political and institutional context.
In general stakeholder participation is
considered by state agencies in terms of how
it can contribute to government led national
development, by allowing for greater reach
to local levels, and better cross-sectoral
coordination. In most cases there are conflicting interpretations regarding the
extent and quality of stakeholder participation where it has occurred.
Stakeholder participation can be interpreted by some to allow for more
efficient use of government resources, and ensuring support for government
policy. Civil society stakeholder expectations however, are often in terms of
shaping the overall direction and value of national and regional development,
In many of those cases,
consensus might not be the
case. Consensus often simply
hides disagreement rather than
dealing with it properly.
the question from local NGOs
arose of ‘what are
stakeholders participating in –
and how will this influence
development decisions
making?
9
and allowing for checks and balances on development. As such, the interest of
civil society is in entering a more strategic engagement that addresses
fundamental issues, while maintaining their right to be critical of state-led
development processes.
The policy and institutional context across the four countries is changing
rapidly. Each of the countries has a commitment to IWRM and within that, a
commitment to public participation (such commitments to public
participation also established in other policy and legislation – such as
decentralization), but in a substantive sense, it may or may not be the case.
Many international organizations are involved in supporting this IWRM
process – eg Global Water Partnership, Asian Development Bank, World
Bank, UNESCAP, UNEP, FAO, Asian Institute of Technology, IGES as well as
IWMI, SEI, IUCN and WWF.
In Thailand, the Thailand Water Resources
Association is also supporting capacity
building in the region based on local level
Thai experience. However experience of
putting IWRM into practice and of
effective stakeholder participation,
whether in formulating strategies and
policies or at the river basin level is more limited.
From the perspective of IWRM, two key concerns have emerged –
the need for improved collaboration and coordination among
government agencies, especially regarding information and
development plans;
and the need for more effective stakeholder and civil society
participation in policy and planning processes as well as in the
establishment of river basin institutions.
It is also important to reflect on the current role of the MRC as part of these
efforts to strengthen IWRM capacity in the region. The MRC is not seen as the
leading player in IWRM capacity building and is not sought out for its own
in-house IWRM technical capacity.
Despite a long history of promoting IWRM in each of the countries it is
generally considered by stakeholders interviewed under this assignment to be
a new term that is not well understood. This seems to be a major challenge
for the IWRM Basin Strategy to get across the message in simple and easily
understood terms. On the other hand, the IWRM itself may not be a perfect
water resource management concept which still needs to be tested and evolve
Each of the countries has a
commitment to IWRM and within
that, a commitment to public
participation, but in a
substantive sense, it may or may
not be the case.
10
by a number of cases and experiences. However, as a regional institution
among many others promoting an IWRM approach, the MRC needs to be able
to engage in supporting capacity building of immediate partners.
Yet there are concerns whether MRC itself has the capacity to provide this
kind of support. There are many different interpretations of what IWRM
means in practice. While the theory and experience of some stakeholders
emphasizes that IWRM is a process, IWRM is too often seen as a plan. For
many civil society stakeholders, IWRM must very much depend on bottom-
up planning processes that require time in order to develop shared
understandings, mechanisms for collaboration and coordination and actions
that will meet people’s needs.
As well as specific IWRM experience,
there are several institutions promoting
participatory area-based planning linked
to water resource management. This
may be directly related to water
resources such as Integrated Coastal
Zone Management in Thailand,
Cambodia and Vietnam, wetland
management, and Integrated Watershed
Management, or to particular resources such as forests, as in the case of
RECOFTC. One of the key issues emerging from the recent World Bank
regional symposium on River Basin Committees was that IWRM should not
be seen as solely concerned with water resources.
The experience of stakeholder participation – within the context of IWRM and
more broadly – varies significantly across the four countries. From reviewing
the literature on stakeholder participation in IWRM and related areas (eg
Molle 2005, Molle and Hoanh 2008, WaterAid 2005) the overall conclusion is
that stakeholder participation has been largely constrained by state led
agendas, and that there is therefore some way to go to reach a more genuine
level of participation that represents the interests of broader groups. For some
actors with long experience of putting IWRM into practice such as local
NGOs, senior researchers and academic institutes, river basin committees and
community organizations, the MRC is not considered to have a good grasp of
IWRM. For these actors, IWRM should be a process that itself depends on
bottom-up planning and meaningful stakeholder participation from the
outset.
Stakeholder participation is often interpreted within the MRC to refer to
‘consultation’ ie. participation in meetings and events that are led by the
There are many different
interpretations of what IWRM
means in practice. While the theory
and experience of some stakeholders
emphasizes that IWRM is a
process, IWRM is too often seen as
a plan.
11
MRC itself. In many ways, this perception is a function of the view within the
MRC of the organization as a technical institution. At this level of
engagement, there is a reasonable degree of experience of involving
stakeholders, even if the range of stakeholders involved is rather limited.
However, there is less experience of supporting stakeholder participation in
the core business of the MRC, for example in technical assessment and
analysis, supporting analysis of key issues, and providing peer review. Yet it
is at this level of engagement with MRC that there is considerable interest
from civil society.
The set of skills within the MRC, whether the Secretariat or NMCs could
provide guidance to this level of participation, is also very limited.
Stakeholder participation is too often seen
as a means to an end, rather than a
requirement of IWRM and an end in itself.
This requires developing a new set of
skills and bringing in new expertise. There
would need to be an efficient monitoring
system, whether in terms of indicators for MRC programmes and activities or
performance indicators for staff, to strengthen participation across the
programme.
2.1.1 Involvement with MRC
Many stakeholders have been directly involved with the MRC – in providing
and sharing information, in undertaking joint activities, in jointly-
implemented donor funded projects, and in involvement in each other’s
conferences, workshops and other events. This group is largely comprised of
international and regional organizations (eg, IUCN, WWF, IWMI, SEI), and
national universities and research centres.
The other main mechanism for engagement with stakeholders is through a
consultancy-based contract. Such an arrangement might be appropriate in
certain circumstances but it clearly also constrains the engagement.
Consultancy should not be confused with partnership, but currently there is
limited space within the institutional structure of the MRC. On the whole the
strategic direction of these engagements is not clear, and there does not
appear to be a process for reviewing such engagement.
At the other end of the scale is a group of stakeholders that are active in water
resource management related issues, and who have a more skeptical and at
times, critical view of the MRC. The relationship with this loose grouping of
stakeholders also varies considerably. At times this group has been openly
Stakeholder participation is too
often seen as a means to an end,
rather than a requirement of
IWRM and an end in itself.
12
critical of the MRC and has addressed their concerns directly to the MRC.
While some organisations within this loose group prefer to stand outside any
formal process with the MRC, the majority are now more prepared to engage
with the MRC with a desire to see the spirit of cooperation for sustainable and
equitable water resource management move forward.
There is another group of
stakeholders that is involved
in areas of work that have
some relevance to the work
of the MRC but who do not
consider themselves to be
directly involved in water
resource management, and
who are not perceived direct
stakeholders by the MRC. The areas of work tend to focus on social
dimensions of development, and include poverty reduction, climate change,
disaster management, health and nutrition, water and sanitation, natural
resource management (eg fisheries and forestry), migration, human rights etc.
These organizations have their own networks for linking grassroots level
initiatives. For this loose group of stakeholders, mutual awareness and
understanding is extremely limited, with virtually no direct contact so far.
However, there is considerable interest among this group in developing some
form of working relationship with the MRC and a growing feeling within the
MRC and government agencies that some form of constructive, managed
engagement can be beneficial. Despite the institutional commitment to
poverty reduction, social dimensions of development are seriously under-
represented within the MRC. Yet in each of the countries there are
coordination mechanisms among INGOs and national NGOs, with Working
Groups established around particular topical themes. These mechanisms
provide opportunities for the MRC to coordinate with other stakeholder
efforts, and also to seek technical advice.
Engagement with local resource
users and communities directly
affected by water resource
infrastructure development is
extremely limited, and it is this
level of stakeholder participation
that remains a challenge at the national level to varying degrees.
While some organisations within this loose
group prefer to stand outside any formal
process with the MRC, the majority are now
more prepared to engage with the MRC with
a desire to see the spirit of cooperation for
sustainable and equitable water resource
management move forward.
Despite the institutional commitment
to poverty reduction, social dimensions
of development are seriously under-
represented within the MRC.
13
2.1.2 Perceptions of MRC
Understandings of the MRC – its mandate, structure and main functions – are
surprisingly limited except for a small group of largely regional stakeholders
that have had direct engagement. Equally from the MRC side, awareness of
national and local stakeholders within the MRC, whether programmes or
NMCs, is also surprisingly limited. Very few of the stakeholders interviewed
understand the programmatic structure of the MRC and virtually none are
adequately aware of the role and functions of the BDP either regionally, or
nationally. For most stakeholders there is no clear distinction between the
various constituent elements of the MRC. For them, ‘the MRC’ can mean the
Secretariat, Programmes of National Committees, or a combination thereof.
Expectations of the MRC and BDP also vary considerably, and are coloured
by perceptions of previous performance, particularly of BDP 1.
While there appears to be more or less across
the board recognition of the value of the
ideal of the MRC and the 1995 Agreement,
the perception of the MRC spans a wide
spectrum – ranging from the MRC being
seen as, directly involved in promoting
hydropower, as a servant of the countries,
led by the donors, lacking influence, and
even as a ‘waste of time and money’.
The understanding of the main areas of work of the BDP unsurprisingly are
even more limited. Much of the BDP’s work is highly technical, and
represents a rather specific approach to IWRM based on modeling change and
impacts. The way in which this work is presented by the MRC team is not
always consistent and while it remains clear to those closely involved in the
BDP continues to be confusing to those outside the BDP process. Several
models and schematics of what the BDP is trying to do have been used for
external communication (whether formal or informal), and while these are not
contradictory they are not always entirely consistent. This inconsistency
merely adds to the confusion. The terminology itself is a source of confusion
– whether ‘scenarios’, ‘project short/long list’, ‘project cycle’ etc.
The talk of a 'Basin Development Plan’ can confuse stakeholders – many of
whom interpret this to mean that this represents an umbrella plan (of
infrastructure development) to which the governments must adhere. There
are both conceptual challenges in what the BDP is trying to do, and
communications challenges in the ways in which it is presented.
Understandings of the MRC – its
mandate, structure and main
functions – are surprisingly limited
except for a small group of largely
regional stakeholders that have had
direct engagement.
14
In many cases there has not been any direct communication with the MRC
beyond a narrow circle of stakeholders fuelling a high degree of
misconceptions and misunderstanding. Even among many of the closest
stakeholders there is a sense that the MRC has not been taking on board the
feedback that has been provided. On the whole, the work of strengthening
stakeholder participation in the countries is starting from a point of limited
experience and limited understanding. It is therefore important that next
steps are incremental, pragmatic and realistic – and that they allow for
practical relationship building. Improving
communications, building up relationships and
ensuring that messages are consistent and not
contradictory, are essential. At its most simple
level, this requires the MRC and other
stakeholders getting to know each other, with
the onus on the MRC to reach out and actually
visit various stakeholders.
The perception of the role and function of the MRC within the MRC also
varies among programmes, and staff. The MRC plays many different roles –
sometimes acting as a technical unit, and at other times playing the role of
facilitator. These are quite different roles that would require a different kind
of stakeholder engagement. For the technical role, the kind of stakeholders is
defined according to technical interest and competence. For the facilitator role
different criteria would apply. Whether or not MRC would be able to play a
neutral facilitator role, this is still a challenge. There is still a lack of clarity
within the MRC itself on how it will accommodate both these kinds of roles,
and therefore what the implications for stakeholder participation might be?
Stakeholder perceptions of the MRC’s role vary. The majority of stakeholders
have some understanding that the MRC is a creation of the four governments
of the Lower Mekong Basin, and as such see the MRC Secretariat as being
answerable to the government members. Some see the MRC’s role in ensuring
some degree of integrated development across the basin according to the
needs of the four governments. However, many other stakeholders consider
the MRC to be either leading development or pushing an agenda of a
particular kind of development based around water resource infrastructure.
There is also some doubt among stakeholders as to the extent the MRC can or
should act as a veto on regional development where such development does
not fit with concerns for sustainability and equity. The degree to which the
MRC represents and answers to the governments rather than the citizens, and
the nature of the development agenda with which the MRC is associated are
key issues for many stakeholders. On the whole, the MRC is seen as an
There are both conceptual
challenges in what the BDP is
trying to do, and communications
challenges in the ways in which it
is presented.
15
important regional organization and a key actor, even if its effectiveness is
questioned and its potential is seen as not having been realised.
Coordination and collaboration between the constituent elements of the MRC,
and between the MRC and the governments is not always as good as it might
be. This is regularly commented upon by those within the MRC, and clearly
observed from those outside the organization. This causes confusion among
those that engage with some elements of the MRC but get an inconsistent
picture of the institution as a whole.
All stakeholders recognize the role of the MRC in generating and
disseminating knowledge and information. The MRC is widely
acknowledged as an important source of information, and some of the
programmes have a good reputation for this. However, some of the most
serious concerns of stakeholders are those regarding the accessibility and
reliability of some knowledge and information from the MRC. It was
frequently stated that it is difficult for those outside the MRC to access
information in a timely manner, and in some cases, difficult to access
information at all. Hopefully difficulty accessible to information will be
improved shortly when the newly approved Disclosure Policy of MRC is
implemented.
In some cases this is seen as a deliberate strategy of the MRC to constrain
stakeholder participation and to minimize the accountability and
transparency of the organisation. This kind of perception obviously
undermines the level of trust and confidence stakeholders have in the MRC. It
was frequently argued that this is an area that the MRC must address in order
to be able to move ahead with stakeholder participation. But this is also an
area that the MRC frequently states that its own institutional structure, rules
and regulations act as a constraint on its more transparent sharing of
information. Unless this issue can be addressed adequately, stakeholder
participation in the future will continue to be extremely limited, and
potentially unproductive.
This is most difficult in circumstances regarding controversial projects for
which information might not always be publicly available. The MRC is often
seen, rightly or wrongly, as having a role to play in making this information
available and is thus a focus for criticism. It is important that the MRC
clarifies its role in disseminating information, and the constraints on the MRC
in certain circumstances, as well as developing a more proactive approach to
effective dissemination.
16
Expectations of how the MRC should operate thus also vary considerably. For
the majority of stakeholders interviewed, the value of the 1995 Agreement in
bringing the four countries together is recognized, and there is an enthusiasm
to see the Agreement work in practice, even when interpretations of the
Agreement vary. However, the majority of stakeholders do not feel that the
MRC has been fully effective, particularly in facing the most contentious
development challenges and in putting a regional perspective ahead of
national perspectives. The degree of influence over national and regional
development that the MRC asserts is widely questioned, to the extent that the
need to reformulate the 1995 Agreement in such a way that the MRC would
have greater influence over the member countries was also raised.
For many stakeholders there is a question of fundamental development
values at stake. Some of the issues that are paramount in the minds of
stakeholders are particularly contentious – for example, land concessions –
and there is a sense that the MRC is unwilling or unable to address these
issues. As such there are serious questions regarding the integrity and value
of the MRC.
As the MRC positions itself around a
role as facilitator the requirement on
the organization to deal with such
controversial issues intensifies. There
is a lingering perception both inside
and outside the MRC that its main role
is to identify investment projects
(largely infrastructure) for the
countries to ‘develop their water
resources’. Given that these notions of development are keenly contested, by
appearing to be committed to such a specific development agenda makes it
difficult for MRC to play the role of neutral facilitator.
Expectations of engagement with the MRC therefore also vary considerably.
While for some stakeholders engagement is seen in terms of collaboration
along similar lines (eg in joint projects etc) and as a requirement for donor
funding for their own projects, for others, engagement with the MRC is a
mechanism to engage in decision-making and a vehicle to reach senior
decision-makers regarding the direction of regional and national water
resource management. It is important the future steps recognize these
different expectations, and efforts to strengthen the relationship are directed
accordingly.
It is important that the MRC
clarifies its role in disseminating
information, and the constraints on
the MRC in certain circumstances,
as well as developing a more
proactive approach to effective
dissemination.
17
Much of the interest among stakeholders in the MRC is based around a few
key issues, prominent among these being the development of hydropower.
Interest in these issues derives from different perspectives from conservation.
rights and development and include –fisheries, forestry, land concessions,
extractive industries, health and nutrition, water and sanitation, irrigation,
and agriculture.
The way in which MRC presents
itself as an IWRM based
organization is not always
familiar to stakeholders. The
emphasis on IWRM is seen as a
recent positioning, resulting in
some confusion as to what this
actually means in practice. IWRM
is itself seen as a relatively new
term, and there is not widespread
understanding of the principles and background of IWRM, nor of
international and national commitments to pursuing an IWRM approach to
water resource management. There is clearly a strong need for MRC to be
able to a leading thinker in formulating, promoting and debating about issues
related to IWRM in the Mekong, and source of information on IWRM for it to
maintain credibility in this position. There are many other issues that would
be relevant to the interests of the MRC as a regional IWRM body. But again,
the MRC will need to be able to clarify its own development agenda if it is to
take on this role.
The MRC also presents itself as a knowledge based organization. Much of its
work is of a highly technical nature. For the similarly oriented organizations
and potential partners, there is interest in contributing to the technical quality
of the MRC’s work based on their own in-house expertise, and adding value
and credibility to the MRC’s technical work by providing a forum for review
and critique. It is important that as the technical work moves into the policy
arena, that the credibility of this work is ensured. For other organizations, and
broader stakeholders (whether from the government, local people or private
sector) engaging in technically framed debates can be difficult. While these
stakeholders would like to be able to engage with the MRC it is important
that public engagement is managed well so that each side is able to come to a
forum well informed, and able to communicate easily with each other.
Engaging in technically framed debates
can be difficult. While these
stakeholders would like to be able to
engage with the MRC it is important
that public engagement is managed well
so that each side is able to come to a
forum well informed, and able to
communicate easily with each other.
18
2.1.3 Levels of Participation for MRC
There are different levels of stakeholder participation for the MRC to consider
as the followings:
sharing information and data;
performing services for MRC based on contractual arrangements;
providing technical advice;
consultation – largely taken to mean towards the conclusion of a
decision about a specific project;
partnership in project design and implementation;
design of development vision and strategy;
watchdog – to oversee, monitor and evaluate.
The MRC is widely recognized as having a role in generating and
coordinating data and information. However, virtually all stakeholders
consider that the availability and acceptability of this data and information is
inadequate but also, that addressing this problem is a prerequisite for
effective stakeholder participation. In addition, stakeholders are also
recognized that MRC has a role to facilitate public consultation, which they
consider that meaningful consultation will also require accessible to
information at national level. Translation into regional languages has also
been a long-standing issue that will need to
be addressed.
While the interests of civil society
encompass all of the above levels of
participation the main interest is in the
more strategic levels of engagement that can
influence the direction of regional
development.
2.1.4 Managing Stakeholder Consultation Events – the Risk of Co-
option One of the major concerns of civil society when engaging with the state and
the MRC is that their participation will be co-opted, and that their presence in
an event can be used to argue support for decisions, announced but not
discussed in the event. There is a long history of such co-option in the region,
where civil society has attended a meeting but not had the opportunity for
meaningful dialogues and engagement, and where their presence is used to
suggest that they have endorsed specific decisions that have been debated. It
Stakeholders are also recognized
that MRC has a role to facilitate
public consultation, which they
consider that meaningful
consultation will also require
accessible to information at
national level.
19
is therefore essential that objectives of consultation events are clear and brief
documents in simple language have been distributed to participants well in
advance.
MRC stakeholder consultations consist of three key elements
discussion of analysis of current situation, trends and implications;
discussion of options; and
discussion of specific
development strategies.
It is important in the design and
implementation of stakeholder
consultations that these three elements
are not blurred, and that the event does
not move too quickly to the final
discussion of specific development
strategies. Civil society’s engagement in
advocacy, and expectations of MRC as a knowledge based organization, is
that there will be improved space and process for the discussion of analysis –
bringing together a variety of voices, knowledges and perspectives, and that
this will be followed by a discussion that covers all development options.
Very often these key steps can be constrained and thereby deny opportunities
for meaningful discussion. Currently the main concern is that there has not
been debate on analysis and options and this is very much the interest of civil
society in engaging now with MRC.
If the stakeholder consultation event moves too quickly to the final discussion
(of specific development strategies) the space for meaningful debate is
already closed, and it is difficult for participants to critique the background
analysis, or to raise alternatives development strategies.
The greatest danger then lies in the risk that the event will be asked to
endorse specific development strategies, without having had adequate critical
debate. There mere presence of civil society at an event can be manipulated to
be an endorsement. Such engagement would not live up to the standards and
principles established in the SPCP and would act as a deterrent to civil society
engaging in the future, and would thus damage the reputation and integrity
of the MRC itself.
If the stakeholder consultation event
moves too quickly to the final
discussion (of specific development
strategies) the space for meaningful
debate is already closed, and it is
difficult for participants to critique
the background analysis, or to raise
alternatives development strategies.
20
3. SUMMARY of ORGANZATIONAL REFORM:
MRC Self-Analysis
3.1 Introduction
Implementing principles of stakeholder participation in the MRC requires
significant organisational change. There is a need for all MRC management
bodies (and BDP) to make a self-assessment in order to deliver a clear
message to the both within MRC and stakeholders of the organizational
change capacity in improving stakeholder participation. This is very
necessary for the MRC to develop a good organizational understanding and
realistic expectation in this regard.
For a decade the MRC has
acknowledged the importance of
stakeholder participation as a
component of IWRM – having
developed background documents
and strategies. But the MRC has itself
acknowledged that it has failed to
implement these principles and
strategies across the MRC (SPCP Feb
2009). However, there are many
questions, even within the MRC, regarding the definition of stakeholder
participation, what this process should entail, how it is being led and the roles
of different programmes in implementing stakeholder participation. There is
therefore a clear requirement for the MRC as an organization to change.
Nevertheless, the MRC is capable or not and/or to what extent?
The extent to which organizations become learning organsiations and
embrace change can be considered as comprising three inter-linked elements
(see Honey and Borszony and Hunter 1996) that require a willingness and
ability to change, as well as institutional structures that allow for change.
These are summarized below:
i) Willing. The extent to which organisations and individuals within
organisations agree with core principles and practices, and the
extent to which they are willing to adopt the principles and
implement these in their work.
ii) Able. The extent to which organisations and individuals within
institutions are able to adopt the principles and implement these in
There is a need for all MRC
management bodies (and BDP) to
make a self-assessment in order to
deliver a clear message to the both
within MRC and stakeholders of the
organizational change capacity in
improving stakeholder participation.
21
their work – ie whether they have the required professional,
technical capacities, skills and knowledge.
iii) Allowed. The extent to which institutional norms and regulations
fit change principles and allow for their application – ie whether
institutional structures, values and ways of working, performance
indicators and career development pathways, rules and regulations
allow organisations and individuals to work for effective
stakeholder participation.
By reviewing these three elements – willing, able and allowed – it is possible
to identify the areas that need strengthening and approaches that will allow
for organisational reform within the MRC. 1
The tables below present an attempt to summarise the perspectives of i)
within the MRC and ii) from the perspective of civil society. This is a
summary table and therefore does not capture the full detail, diversity and
complexity of the MRC, national context in the four countries or the diversity
of what constitutes civil society. But it is intended to provide background
reasoning and an explanation for the kinds of recommendations that are
being presented in this report. Further detail is supplied in the summaries of
each of the four MRC country members.
3.2 Overview of the Perspectives within MRC – MRCS,
Programmes, NMCs and Governments
Willing Able Allowed
Interest in public
participation dates back
to 1998 – but uneven
performance (and
criticism from external
actors)
The interpretation of
what is meant by
stakeholder
Much of the focus so far
has been for NMCs to
address inter-sectoral
co-ordination, and to
build relationships with
NMCs of the other
countries, with less
attention towards civil
society participation
Policy and legislation in
each of the countries
provides some space for
stakeholder
participation – but
experience and practice
varies
Currently reviewing
stakeholder
1 Such an assessment of organizational change would normally be done more
thoroughly through extensive interviews and structured questionnaires. The
framework is used here simply to present a way of thinking about organizational
change. It is not the intention to suggest that such a thorough analysis as would
normally be required has been undertaken.
22
participation remains
unclear in practice – and
often is inconsistent
Commitment to public
participation now stated
in the SPCP that
outlines principles that
has been endorsed by
the NMCs
In practice, the degree of
commitment to
stakeholder
participation remains
unclear
Stakeholder
participation tends to be
interpreted to mean
consultation – ie
participation in
meetings and events
Commitment to ‘equal
partnership’ is not yet
established in MRC –
preference given to
contractual
arrangements, or
consultation
Concern over exposing
MRC and member states
to public criticism –
expectation of
‘constructive criticism’
Questions regarding the
MRC’s willingness to
address controversial
issues in public
SPCP recognizes that
stakeholder
participation has not
been mainstreamed
across the MRC
Good experience of
inviting stakeholders to
participate in certain
kinds of programme
events
Some programmes have
applied participatory
principles in some kinds
of project activities
Some clear examples of
NMCs coordinating
among relevant
government agencies
but also examples of
poor coordination, and
limited influence of
NMCs
Limited participatory
skills and experience of
individual staff
members of MRCS,
programmes and NMCs
Identified need to
improve
communications skills –
and methods for
representing the MRC
MRC is not seen as the
leading institution
involved in IWRM in
the region
participation in MRC
governance processes –
but seen as being slow
to act
Constraints of
contractual
arrangements for
developing partnerships
– including issues of
sharing information,
copyright etc
National governance
structures of NMCs
established with limited
scope for broader
participation in formal
structures
No barriers to
establishing loose
advisory bodies to
NMCs and programmes
in country, and to the
Sub-Area Working
Groups
No institutional barriers
to engaging
stakeholders in core
activities
Questions concerning
the extent to which
NMCs and MRC
activities are part of
regular government
institutions and
practice, particularly at
more local levels
No performance
23
Limited effort directed
towards improving
understanding of civil
society, and limited
direct personal face-to-
face communication
with broader
stakeholders
Outstanding question to
what extent the MRC is
willing to share
information
Is the MRC willing to
share information that
has not been approved
by the countries?
Questions of
accessibility and
availability of MRC data
and information – but
the information that is
available is generally
well regarded, but not
yet subject to external
critical review
indicators for promoting
effective participation
Restrictions on sharing
of information –
particularly in draft
format
Is the MRC allowed to
share information that
has not been approved
by the countries?
3.3 Overview of the Perspectives of Civil Society Stakeholders
Willing Able Allowed
Most civil society
organizations are keen
to see the MRC fulfill its
mandate effectively.
Most organizations do
not consider the MRC to
be the leading player in
regional development –
compared to ASEAN
and GMS
Motivations of civil
society to engage with
MRC vary (as does the
nature of these
organisations) – from
Many organizations
have limited
understanding of MRC
structure, functions and
processes.
Misconceptions and
misunderstandings
Wide range of skills and
experience –
particularly in technical
areas either in which
MRC requires
additional support (eg
modeling) or in areas in
which MRC capacity is
seriously lacking (social
Despite policy and
legislation that supports
the principle of
stakeholder
participation the
practice is not seen as
living up to expectations
Personnel and funding
of stakeholders is not
always sufficient to
engage effectively
Financial, time and
personnel constraints to
maintain high level of
regular engagement in
24
partnership in joint
projects, accessing
funding to engaging
with the MRC to inform
and influence regional
development.
A central expectation is
that engagement is in a
meaningful, well-
managed process that
allows for dialogue
from the earliest stages.
Concern about being co-
opted by a process that
does not meet
expectations of effective
participation, but that
can be misrepresented.
Incentives for civil
society to engage
depend on being able to
influence decision-
making processes and
development outcomes
Effective engagement of
the local people –
particularly the poor,
vulnerable and
marginalized is a key
concern for civil society
Outstanding question
regarding incentives for
local communities to
participate?
development,
participation)
Applying participatory
approaches is for many
civil society
organizations a core
principle of good
development, rather
than a means to an end.
There is considerable
expertise in such areas
as participatory &
community based
approaches
But - lack of technical
expertise of many
organizations on many
elements of MRC core
work
Civil society
organizations have
extensive networks
involving local
grassroots
organizations, local
resource users and
generally linked to
government institutions
and processes
Networking
mechanisms for INGOs
around thematic areas
within countries
At local level, not
enough is known about
the MRC to be able to
engage
all MRC activities.
Funding from MRC
however could be seen
to compromise their
independence
Participation needs to be
throughout the cycle –
from the very beginning
of formulation of
strategies and plans
through to
implementation and
M&E – do MRC
structures allow for
this?
National policy largely
supportive of local level
participation – but
practice is often very
different with limited
space and a feeling from
civil society in some
countries that their
engagement is
constrained
No mechanisms in place
– and the style of
working of MRC creates
many obstacles to this
level of engagement
25
3.4 Summary –Potential for Organization Reform
The most important area for change is the initial recognition that effective
stakeholder participation for a large, complex organization such as the MRC
does indeed require significant organizational change that will not be met
simply by consultant reports, or even policy changes. Operating in
accordance with the kinds of principles laid out in the SPCP represents a
significant change in organizational values that will need to be met with
corresponding changes in capacities,
working methods, performance
indicators and avenues for
professional development. Currently
it is not clear that these kinds of
values are well understood or shared
across the MRC.
While there is broad support ‚in
principle‛ for stakeholder
participation within the MRC, the way in which the term is interpreted and
therefore incentives for engaging with stakeholders are not consistent across
the MRC.
Communications remains a major problem for the MRC that individual staff
identify but do not have the skills to address. Capacity for stakeholder
engagement is extremely limited within the organization. That this area of
‘technical expertise’ has not been targeted for development indicates that it is
given little credibility. The organization sees itself primarily as a technical
organization catering to a technical audience – but this also acts as an excuse
to avoid operating with a broad base of stakeholders. In this sense, MRC has a
role to digest and simplify the technical messages to stakeholders and how
those will impact to the ecosystem and people in the Mekong Basin. The
concept of engaging as equal partners – rather than through the main
mechanism of engagement, contracts and consultations – does not appear to
have been accepted yet2.
Civil society includes a wide range of organizations with a wide range of
interests. Overall there is support for the ideal of the MRC – but skepticism
about its motivations and capacity to engage. The issues of information
availability, accessibility and acceptability, as well as the need to move
2 The current review of stakeholder participation at the governance level is of course
an indicator of a move in the right direction. However, such governance reform is not
yet being supported by reform in the way the institution operates on a more day to day
basis.
While there is broad support “in
principle” for stakeholder
participation within the MRC, the
way in which the term is interpreted
and therefore incentives for engaging
with stakeholders are not consistent
across the MRC.
26
beyond consultation on MRC programmatic issues need to be addressed
urgently.
Many interviewees expect to see significant action in the very near future. But
it is also clear that the majority of stakeholders would like to see the MRC
playing the role of a regional IWRM organization, acting as a source of
information and knowledge, and acting as a neutral facilitator.
For the MRC, it is important to recognize that the change required by taking
on board and applying principles of stakeholder participation requires
different values, attitudes, motivations, skills and capacities, and rules and
norms - ie change in all three areas of willing, able and allowed.
27
4. OVERVIEW of MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations presented below are derived from the series of
consultation and interviews conducted with stakeholder during this
assignment.
4.1 Key Points Construction of dams, particularly on the mainstream is the most
prominent issues for civil society stakeholders at the moment. There
is support for the MRC to play a leading role in conducting
assessments of impacts and facilitating dialogues – and an expectation
that this will be undertaken in a participatory and transparency
manner involving a wide range of stakeholders. There are
opportunities in each of the countries to involve civil society in both
the assessments and in the dialogues.
As well as addressing pending development, it is important that
there is a move away from consultation on impacts to visioning for
the future of the Basin, which visioning livelihoods and governance
arrangements should be prior. Civil society can be a key partner in
supporting MRC’s role in facilitating a broad strategy for the Basin
and involving stakeholders in the process from the outset. The main
interest for civil society to engage with the MRC is in respect of this
role as a facilitator of an IWRM strategy for the Basin, rather than
merely engaging within the framework of MRC programmes and
activities.
Applying participatory principles and approaches to the technical
work of the MRC – and not just to a process of consultation. This
would strengthen the technical quality and rigour of the work within
the MRC, and ensure greater acceptability from the public, while also
building capacity. In doing so, the MRC would need to be able to
accommodate varying degrees of technical expertise.
Common ground between civil society and the MRC lies in shared
broad objectives of poverty reduction and sustainable development
and of an integrated, river basin approach to water resource
management. This is a useful starting point for dialogue. The
differences, sometimes profound, lie in what these terms mean in
practice
28
There is very little understanding of what the BDP is, or of its role
within the MRC. MRC needs to be able to frame the theme of
participation around stakeholder interests rather than around the
project structure of the BDP – these two are not always compatible.
In order to achieve this quality of participation, the MRC (and the
BDP, and the NMCs in each of the countries) need to be more
proactive in developing relationships and improving public
understanding of the MRC. In some cases, this will be starting
virtually from scratch, and will require a gentle step-by-step
approach. It is recommended that such relationship building is
undertaken jointly by BDP MRCS and the NMCs.
Good relationship and trust among stakeholders,it should be
recognized that this will take time and also requires effort to build
understanding among stakeholders, for examples, all stakeholders
need to come to meetings with full information regarding plans for
the Mekong Basin and the implications of these plans. It should also
be recognized that some stakeholders may feel fear and
intimidation about expressing their views (especially if they are in
opposition or critical of the governments), thus restricting the
possibility of having real dialogue take place.
A stronger engagement between the MRC and NGO’s would mean
very little to an improved IWRM process, if the MRC and the NMCs
do not play more active role in facilitating timely, transparent,
complete and reliable information exchange and dialogue among all
Mekong Basin stakeholders.
4.2 Discussion
Effective stakeholder participation
requires practice. For the majority of
MRC representatives, while there is
often enthusiasm, there is limited
practical experience of broad
stakeholder participation beyond
engagement in meetings and events, or within the framework of specific
projects and activities. Practicing stakeholder participation is required, and it
is recommended that indicators of quality of stakeholder participation are
incorporated into the planning of all MRC programmes. While the idea of
establishing a trial project for stakeholder participation was raised by NMC
Practicing stakeholder participation
is required, and it is recommended
that indicators of quality of
stakeholder participation are
incorporated into the planning of all
MRC programmes.
29
representatives in Laos, it would be more useful to focus efforts on ensuring
effective stakeholder participation in the core work of the MRC by focusing
on key areas of work that are being undertaken now – in the assessments
(from developing approach, collecting and analyzing data, peer review) to
processes for dialogue, and in the implementation of joint projects that are
already underway.
Communication – including issues of access to and sharing of information – is
fundamental to MRC being able to fulfill its role and its commitment to
stakeholder participation effectively. Stakeholders come from diverse
backgrounds with a similarly diverse range of interests, expertise,
understanding and expectations of the MRC. While this is to be expected it is
perhaps more surprisingly to appreciate the extent to which understandings
of the MRC within the MRC vary. For example, there are different
interpretations of the role and function of the BDP across programmes and
NMCs, and even among those government agencies most directly involved in
BDP there remains some confusion.
4.2.1 Regional Advisory Mechanism
All stakeholders and many of the MRC representatives expressed interest in
establishing stakeholder advisory mechanisms. A range of suggestions have
been made that will need further discussion:
4.2.1.a. MRC of the People?
The idea of a civil society forum that would somehow be linked to the
MRC has been made many times over the years. The details of what
such a forum might look like need further discussion but essentially
there are two models that have been discussed so far – i) a civil society-
led forum ii) a forum organized by the MRC. In fact, the two models
are not mutually exclusive.
4.2.1.b. Civil society led annual forum
A forum led and organized by
civil society organizations that is
organized in such a way that the
participants have access to senior
decision-making and agenda-
setting levels within the MRC.
Under this relatively broad
The national consultation in
Thailand made a recommendation
that the MRC provide the funding
and meeting space for a civil society
forum, that civil society
organizations would organize
themselves.
30
concept are several quite specific suggestions. For example, the
national consultation in Thailand made a recommendation that the
MRC provide the funding and meeting space for a civil society forum,
that civil society organizations would organize themselves. The agenda
and discussion points would be facilitated by civil society
organizations without involvement of the MRC. After suitable
discussion, the forum would then invite MRC representatives from the
Secretariat, programmes, and NMCs to present their ideas and to
engage in more substantive dialogue. Such a forum would require
MRC funding support and logistics, and would need adequate
preparation.
Under this kind of model, the TORs of the forum, membership and
responsibilities should be developed by civil society organizations
themselves, but MRC should also be active in encouraging
stakeholders that have been consulted during this assignment
contribute to the design and launch.
4.2.1.c. MRC Led Forum
In the SPCP, BDP has suggested hosting a forum for general
welcomed by stakeholders but it is important that the forum is able to
discuss substantive issues, that there is broader participation from civil
society and grassroots organizations, and that the issues emerging
from the forum can be articulated to the higher decision making
processes within MRC.
MRC has also suggested that it could
facilitate a forum and network across
the basin. This could take many forms.
A recent recommendation made by
BDP would be for MRC to facilitate a
network of River Basin Committees
(RBCs) with an annual forum for
network members hosted by MRC.
4.2.1.d. Advisory Boards – Regional, National and Thematic
There is considerable interest in civil society playing an advisory,
monitoring and watchdog role for the technical work that MRC
undertakes, and in establishing a regular institutional mechanism for
civil society organizations to provide peer review of MRC work.
A recent recommendation made
by BDP would be for MRC to
facilitate a network of River
Basin Committees (RBCs) with
an annual forum for network
members hosted by MRC.
31
Again a number of models for such a board have been discussed. One
suggestion would be for a general Advisory Board that would not be
organized around any particular technical areas or topics, that could
meet regularly and have input to all of the MRC programmatic work.
For the MRC programmes an option would be to establish programme-
based Advisory Boards that would take on a combination of steering
committee responsibilities, and technical advisory roles including peer
review of technical work.
An additional option is for Working Groups to be established under
this board organized around specific topics – either technical topics
such as hydrological modeling, or thematic areas such as social
development and poverty reduction.
Such Advisory Boards and Working Groups could be managed at both
the regional and national levels. At the national levels, existing civil
society co-ordination mechanisms such as those that have been
established for NGO Coordination with thematic Working Groups
could provide an initial starting point for the thematic focus. By
engaging in existing Working Groups, the MRC would not be required
to establish a completely new mechanism, and would be able to take
advantage of the existing linkages to government and donor
stakeholders.
Support for such national mechanisms came out of the national
consultations for this assessment. But it was also suggested that there
would need to be some kind of network across the countries that could
allow for the development of a Mekong Basin focus, rather than simply
a national focus. Providing such a regional dimension would also
allow the MRC to present itself as a regional player bringing a unique
perspective.
In considering the issues of reporting and independence two models
could be considered – one managed by MRC, and one independent of
MRC but allowed to feed into most senior level decision making.
Example
The MRC Fisheries Programme provides some good working
examples of how such mechanisms might operate. For example, the
FP has a Technical Advisory Body (TAB) that acts primarily as a
steering committee but also provides technical input to the core
work of the Programme. Recently, in response to concerns about
32
hydropower development and potential fisheries impacts, FP has
established an Expert Working Group comprising internationally
renowned experts on dams and fisheries from around the world to
provide advice on the current status of scientific knowledge on
specific technical issues. An additional mechanism established by
the FP is the annual Fisheries Symposium in which programme
partners and invited guests participate in a technical conference.
4.2.1.e. Apply participatory approaches to design and implementation
of technical work
Stakeholder participation is largely seen within the MRC as a process of
consultation on specific projects, issues or technical areas. However, for
many civil society stakeholders taking on board principles of
stakeholder participation also requires MRC to work in a more
participatory manner throughout its technical work in generating,
analyzing and disseminating data and information.
Not involving civil society more effectively in these areas has been
identified as a key gap for the MRC to address. Each of the countries has
also made policy reforms towards decentralization of development and
natural resources management that gives local institutions and people
greater responsibility in assessing, planning and managing their
resource base.
There has been an enormous growth in developing and applying
participatory approaches within the last decade. Such approaches are
entirely consistent with the principles of IWRM. Civil society
organizations have been at the forefront of this effort and have
considerable technical capacities and experience that would be of value
to the MRC.
A key area of interest is in developing a broader coalition of stakeholder
partners and applying participatory approaches in the technical
assessments of the MRC – for example, in the updating of the Sub-Area
Profiles (SAPs) of the BDP, and in the Vulnerability and Social Impact
Monitoring Initiative of Environment Programme (EP).
Rather than simply being sources
of information, civil society
stakeholders have a role to play in
designing the technical approach,
in conducting the assessments in
By working through a network of
civil society organizations the MRC
has the potential for involving a wide
group of grassroots organizations and
reaching a large number of local
people, as well as ensuring that the
work that it carries out is technically
sound and locally relevant.
33
the field and carrying out the analysis and in presenting and
disseminating the findings. By working through a network of civil
society organizations the MRC has the potential for involving a wide
group of grassroots organizations and reaching a large number of local
people, as well as ensuring that the work that it carries out is technically
sound and locally relevant.
Additionally, involving civil society and local people in such technical
work can be considered as a capacity building process that has the
potential to strengthen existing institutions while also contributing to
the strengthening of IWRM based institutions.
There is good experience in the Mekong Basin of participatory
approaches being applied in this way. As is discussed in the country
sections, the experience of developing Participatory Poverty
Assessments (PPAs) has been hugely influential in each of the Mekong
countries in establishing improved information and more sustainable
methods of gathering data, as well as strengthening the capacity of local
stakeholders to engage in national poverty reduction policy debates. The
PPA approaches have now been endorsed by national governments (eg
see discussion of PPA in Lao PDR below) and by donors.
Civil society organizations have also been active in promoting local
people to undertake their own research and assessment activities, and to
ensure that these feed into local planning institutions and processes.
There are good examples of action research being undertaken by
farmers, fishers and school children in Thailand, and in Cambodia,
NGOs have also supported local people to engage in on-farm
agricultural trials, as well as assessing the fishery of NE Cambodia.
4.2.1.f. Building Partnerships
The new discourse of development emphasizes the importance of
partnership. This is clearly in evidence in the donor harmonization
efforts particularly in Cambodia, Lao and Viet Nam.
The MRC is still at an early stage of engaging in such approaches. It is
significant to note that the MRC does not seem to be active in the efforts
aimed at promoting coordination and information sharing among
development partners. These existing mechanisms would seem to be a
great opportunity for the MRC to broaden its partnership base, raise its
profile, and raise the profile of the Mekong basin and the need for
IWRM.
34
For all MRC countries there is a clear need to engage in existing civil
society networks and coordination mechanisms, and to better
understand the interests of civil society. There are simple steps that
could be easily followed. Very few of the organizations interviewed in
this assignment have ever had any direct personal contact with the MRC
(except in formal workshops etc). Building up informal links, for
example, through presentations of each other’s work and interests, and
regular meetings would mark an important step forward. Providing the
space for informal discussion would at least begin the process of
generating improved understanding.
Currently the opportunities for civil society to establish formal
partnerships with the MRC appear to be rather limited. As several
interviewees have commented the main mechanism for engaging with
the MRC is through a consultancy contract in which the provision of
services to the MRC is the main basis for partnership. While such
contractual arrangements clearly have an important role to play, they
can also act as an impediment to developing equal partnerships, and
thus limit the institutional benefits that might arise. Within the theory of
organizational change (that is also being adopted by international
development organizations such as the World Bank) building equal
partnerships enhance the building of knowledge and advanced skills,
and allow for innovation, and the strengthening of learning
organizations.
The MRC still has not developed relationships with many of the
important civil society organizations, and clearly for those organizations
that are most critical of the MRC. However, there is a lot of work to be
done before getting to the stage of partnership. But for many
organizations, particularly those that have similar technical orientation
and similar ways of working, it seems that the main impediment to
partnerships lies in the constraints of engaging through contracts. This is
a problem that lies with both sides – but is one that will need to be
addressed.
Much of the engagement with
civil society so far is led by
the interests of the BDP.
These are largely based
around implementing the
workplans of the programme
rather than the interests of
civil society. For its part, civil
While the BDP clearly is under pressure
to follow its own workplan, it must also
reflect on the feedback it is receiving, and
adapt its work accordingly. Ultimately it
will need to be more demand led than it
has been in the past.
35
society stakeholders feel that they have made their interests clear to the
BDP, but that the BDP has not responded adequately. While the BDP
clearly is under pressure to follow its own workplan, it must also reflect
on the feedback it is receiving, and adapt its work accordingly.
Ultimately it will need to be more demand led than it has been in the
past.
During this consultancy we have not been able to conduct the
stakeholder analysis at the Sub-Area level. However, identifying
existing mechanisms, organsiations and projects should be
straightforward. This information is generally available at local
authorities, and also with the NGO coordination mechanisms. The
challenge is in planning participation in a meaningful process that is of
relevance to local stakeholders.
There are some organizations that will not participate in MRC-led
processes, largely through concern that their participation will be co-
opted. The MRC should not expect to have the same kind of relationship
with all organizations but equally should not avoid engagement with
stakeholders that are critical. It would be worth the MRC, and BDP in
particular, following a process of reflection on the main criticisms that
they are facing – with an outside facilitator assisting in the process.
4.2.1.g. Reforms within the MRC
Addressing stakeholder participation requires change within the MRC
itself. As we have summarized above, such change can be seen in the
areas of the MRC being willing, able and allowed to implement a
meaningful approach to stakeholder participation.
The most frequently cited cause of
tension with the MRC is in the area of
availability, accessibility and
acceptability of MRC information.
Clearly there are institutional barriers
to MRC providing certain kinds of
information freely but where these barriers do exist, they need to be
clearly explained. But given that there are such institutional barriers that
might not be easily changed, it is all the more important that where
possible, the MRC is proactive in making information available in
different forms and for different kinds of stakeholders.
A key gap in expertise lies in the
limited capacity in social
development within the MRC.
36
There is also a clear need to develop the understanding of stakeholder
participation and the implications of applying the principles laid out in
the BDP SPCP. This also requires building the in-house MRC capacity
for stakeholder participation and of applying participatory approaches
in their technical work.
A key gap in expertise lies in the limited capacity in social development
within the MRC. Currently there is only a handful of staff with such
technical background, and none of these is in a position of authority.
Given the overall institutional objectives of poverty reduction and
sustainable development a much higher representation of socio-
economic expertise across the MRC would seem appropriate.
One suggestion made in the consultation in Thailand is for the
establishment of a Social Development Unit within the MRCS and
within the NMCs. An additional suggestion would be for this to be
integrated at a senior level within the BDP. Such a unit would be
responsible for providing technical advice across the MRC, for leading
stakeholder participation and facilitation, and for leading the
development and application of participatory approaches.
The lack of practical experience of MRC staff at the local level in
different parts of the basin has also been identified as an important gap
in capacity. This is largely an issue for the MRCS. Very few of the MRCS
have even visited areas outside their own country, and certainly not the
more remote areas or the areas that
are being targeted for development.
Consequently their knowledge and
familiarity with the key issues is
extremely limited. This kind of
capacity gap could be easily
addressed.
Currently there are no professional incentives to improve capacity and
performance regarding stakeholder participation. Establishing clear
performance indicators for MRC staff based on meeting the principles of
stakeholder participation could be an effective means of improving
performance. But it would also require the acceptance of new ways of
working, and encouragement from line managers so that individual staff
would not be constrained in pursuing such targets.
The lack of a database of stakeholders within the MRC is a clear
weakness that again could be easily addressed. Under this consultancy
The lack of practical experience of
MRC staff at the local level in
different parts of the basin has
also been identified as an
important gap in capacity.
37
we have begun to develop such a database but for it to be useful and
sustainable it would need to be developed with involvement of all the
programmes and the NMCs, and to be regularly updated. This
responsibility would need to be shared by the MRCS and the NMCs,
and should be more routine across the MRC.
The poor communication across the programmes within the MRCS leads
to project-based approach that can at worst lead to competition among
programmes, and at the very least lead to inefficiency and poor
performance. Many interviewees within the MRC have pointed to this
as a long-standing issue and as such, poor communication is itself in
danger of becoming institutionalized as an acceptable, normal way of
working in the MRC.
On 25 November 2009 BDP organized a stakeholder forum that was
invited to comment on the latest draft of the SPCP. Working in small
groups, participants presented a number of recommendations directed
to MRC and more specifically to BDP. These are summarized in the table
below.
Regional Consultation on BDP – Working Groups recommendations
The process for BDP scenario assessment should be better elaborated. In
particular the SPCP needs to explain more clearly how negotiations on trade-
offs will take place and how stakeholders can participate in these negotiations
in addition to MRC Member Countries.
The SPCP should ensure consultations/dialogues at different scales to increase
effectiveness.
The issues brought up for consultation/dialogue should be of concern to
stakeholders, not only to MRC. There need to be clear benefits of dialogue to
act as incentives for participation.
Communications, Information
BDP should ensure adequate availability of information to enable
stakeholders to prepare for consultations and dialogues.
There should be more frequent communications, especially with private
sector stakeholders.
MRC should explore other communication channels, different techniques for
communication and should ensure a step-by-step approach for full
38
engagement,
MRC should consider developing a glossary of MRC/BDP terms to facilitate a
good understanding of issues and effective engagement.
Existing Mechanisms
BDP should build on or use existing networks, processes and research
institutions in the region and/or let these networks organize the dialogues.
Thematic working groups with participation of agencies with relevant
expertise and/or working in the same areas would be a good way to engage.
Reaching local people
Engaging with local people can be done more effectively. It is possible for
MRC to have dialogue if enough credible neutral players are also involved
Need to build up consultations from the local level and prepare communities
to participate
Need to use appropriate communications approaches and materials
Need to build up from existing networks, mechanisms, organizations
39
SECTION II: Countries Analysis
5. CAMBODIA
5.1 Introduction and Overview
Cambodia has a vibrant civil society with a wide number of national and local
organizations involved in a full range of development and natural resource
management issues. Concern for water resources management in the context
of the Mekong is extremely high – perhaps the highest among the four
countries. However, CSOs are generally considered that space of
stakeholder participation in development and natural resource
management could not be freely from political circumstance, power
imbalance and huge social barriers.
With much of Cambodia dependent on agriculture, fisheries and forestry –
and with the Mekong entwined within society and culture, there is a greater
awareness of Mekong water resource development issues. Many civil society
organizations are involved in field level work and research around the Tonle
Sap Lake, the upper reaches of the Mekong between the Lao border (Stung
Treng and Kratie), the 3S basin, and the Cambodia part of the Mekong delta.
Cambodia has long positioned itself as a downstream country with much at
stake from development of neighbouring countries. This is still a perception
that has some resonance among civil society but Cambodia is itself
increasingly becoming a player in regional water resource development, with
hydropower development and expansion of irrigation central to national
development policy. These are inevitably potentially contentious issues, and
there is therefore a need for integration, coordination and consensus building
to avoid confrontation.
There is a long history of tension regarding water resource development in
Cambodia, between Cambodia and neighbouring countries, and between
civil society and the state. This is exemplified by experience of the Yali Falls
dams on the Sesan river. The Yali Falls continues to have a powerful
resonance among Cambodian civil society. From this experience of
campaigning on behalf of locally affected people, by building networks
among these people and linking to provincial and district government
agencies, civil society has developed certain ways of engaging and lobbying,
often in partnership with international NGOs, research centres and well-
40
renowned universities. The MRC has often been criticized for being
ineffective in dealing with these issues and reluctant to share information
with the public. Civil society on the other hand has often been an important
source of information and research, even if its findings have been contested.
But there is also a clear perception among some government agencies that
some NGOs are confrontational and unwilling to engage in constructive
debate.
Most recently a number of Cambodian NGOs have come together to form
the Rivers Coalition of Cambodia (RCC) – a network hosted by NGO
Forum but involving a number of national and local NGOs. They are
specifically focused on water resources development and in particular, on
hydropower and riparian community rights. They have undertaken a number
of studies in collaboration with regional and international partners, and have
hosted national dialogue events, as well as a range of advocacy and
networking activities at the local level. At times they have been vocal critics of
government policy and practice, and of regional development actors,
including the MRC and ADB. However, they are keen to point out that they
share the government’s commitment to poverty reduction and sustainable
natural resource management – and that their differences are in interpretation
of appropriate actions. They are reasonably high-profile, well organized and
articulate, pulling together a broad network that also includes grassroots
organizations and networks of local people. They are active organized and
facilitated public consultation in the MRC sub-area, which MRC had
participated in two of their meetings recently and gave presentation on
mainstream dames and MRCs role.
There is a wider range of NGOs involved in development more broadly in
Cambodia. These include organizations that are involved in delivering social
development support, as well as organizations strengthening the capacity of
local people and institutions to plan and manage development processes.
Many of these work closely with government agencies particularly at
provincial and district level and are more likely to be perceived as
development partners of the state. They see their ability to influence state
development policy and practice founded on their practical experience at the
local level, and their research and advocacy skills. For example, Cambodian
Centre for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC) is involved in
promoting sustainable agriculture, building up networks of farmers and
strengthening extension agencies. They are focused on small-scale irrigation
and System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and are currently reaching 12, 000
villages across the whole of Cambodia. This represents a considerable reach.
41
Stakeholder participation in Cambodia also needs to be seen in the context
of governance reforms, and in particular decentralization and
deconcentration (D&D). Over the last decade the government of Cambodia
has attempted to re-establish governance, rebuilding the country after
decades of intense conflict. A central element of governance reforms has been
the establishment of elected Commune Councils as the building block of local
development and natural resource planning and management. This process
included development of annual District level plans, as well as coordination
mechanisms across line agencies and NGOs at the provincial level. Cambodia
has implemented a number of community management approaches – most
significant of which is the establishment of Community Fisheries (with the
support of the Fisheries Administration FiA) across the country. Additionally,
there have been attempts at establishing Community Forestry, Farmer Water
User Associations, and implementation of participatory planning tools such
as Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP). The strategy of establishing
networks of local people, and supporting community management of
resources (particularly fisheries and forests) has a greater resonance in this
context of decentralization. Stakeholder participation in Cambodia for the
MRC needs to fit within this broader institutional context.
Cambodia has perhaps the highest number of development focused NGOs.
There are two main organizations providing a coordination function -
Cooperation Committee of Cambodia (CCC) and NGO Forum in
Cambodia. The membership of CCC largely comprises international NGOs
and covers a wider range of sectoral and technical interests. NGO Forum
caters largely to Cambodian NGOs, but there are strong links and several
collaborations between the two networks.
As part of the efforts towards donor harmonization the government has
embarked on strategic planning within Ministries, and establishing
Technical Working Groups to oversee planning and coordination between
government agencies, donors and NGOs, and to provide technical input
into decision-making.
Several TWGs are also active in areas relating to IWRM and issues pertinent
to the MRC, especially issues related to land management, stainable
livelihoods and impact from hydropower projects. These TWGs are closely
working with local community organization and poor people to identify and
address poverty issues related to impact from infrastructure development in
the Mekong. They are emphasis in promoting community base natural
resource management and capacity for local communities.
42
5.2 National Planning, IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in
Cambodia
5.2.1 National Development Planning
Development planning in Cambodia revolves around promoting economic
growth and reducing poverty. The key national development plans include:
Government’s Rectangular Strategy Phase II ;
National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 2006–2010;
National Programme for Household Food Security and Poverty
Reduction 2007-2011;
Joint Strategy for Agriculture and Water 2006-1010;
Strategic Plan on Water Resources Management and Development
2005–2008;
Law on Water Resources Management in the Kingdom of Cambodia
(approved June 2007).
Central elements of state planning are in terms of poverty reduction and food
security, promoting good governance (as part of the Decentralisation and
Deconcentration reform process) and in improved strategic planning, and
inter-sectoral coordination.
For the water sector, the emphasis of policy is on irrigation development and
extending water management to also include promotion of agricultural
production and rural economy to achieve government targets of halting
poverty by 2015. More recently hydropower development within Cambodia
has emerged as a key development priority for the government
An important mechanism for coordination among state agencies, and with
donors and NGOs has been the establishment of a series of Technical
Working Groups within different ministries dealing with coordination
between sectors, and between different actors involved in the same sector
(particularly NGOs and donors).
5.2.2 Decentralization and Deconcentration
Promoting good governance has been a corner stone of donor led attempts to
support post conflict recovery and sustainable development in Cambodia.
These efforts have been supported by a range of donors including Sida, DFID,
Danida, IDRC as well as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank. Part of
this effort has been directed towards Decentralisation and Deconcentration.
43
Administrative levels in Cambodia are of national, provincial, commune
and village. Cambodia has embarked on an extensive process of
decentralized planning in which elected Commune (and Sangkat) Councils
have taken on responsibility for local level planning. This process of
decentralization is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior (MOI)
with the main department being the Department for Local Administration
(DOLA).
The Commune Councils are the main local planning unit. Commune Councils
typically include around 11 villages and are elected every 5 years. The CCs
have taken on a wide range of responsibilities for development planning and
natural resource management, and are increasingly expected to take on even
more wide ranging responsibilities (eg dealing with domestic violence).
However, much of the investment at this local level of Communes has tended
to focus on infrastructure (eg roads, schools etc) rather than what could be
termed soft investments. Even when natural resource management
(particularly fisheries, water and forests) emerge as issues during the
planning cycle they tend not to be taken up and allocated funds at the final
stages of the cycle (District Integration Workshop). There are many reasons
for this.
The planning process involves village level planning feeding into commune
planning that is then fed into an annual planning process at the District level,
the District Integration Workshop (DIW) at which stage plans are finalized
and budgets approved. There is also a process for hiring private sector
contractors for implementing infrastructure projects. Yet the Commune
Councils remain the main local level planning unit and are thus key actors
for BDP at the Sub-Area level.
At the provincial level, the Provincial Rural Development Committee (PRDC)
chaired by the Provincial Governor is the main mechanism for ensuring
coordination among the provincial line agencies. The PRDC also provides a
mechanism for NGOs to participate, largely in order to ensure effective
communication between state agencies and NGOs, and also for some
coordination and collaboration, including implementation of joint projects. At
the Sub-Area level the PRDC thus provides a possible mechanism for
coordination and collaboration within provinces between line agencies,
and with locally active NGOs.3
3 The PRDC should be able to provide a summary of all NGOs and NGO projects
active in the province. It is likely that most if not all of these NGOs will be
represented in the PRDC Ex-Com.
44
Considerable support has gone into strengthening this planning process, and
in particular the Commune Councils - from donors (UNDP, ADB, Sida, DFID,
DANIDA) and international and national NGOs and research centres (eg
CARE, PACT, CDRI). Under the MOI, the councils have created a new
federation (the National League of Commune Councils and Sangkats or
NLCS) to represent their interests through MOI at the national policy level.
The capacity of Commune Councillors themselves continues to be a key issue
with much of the interest and concern directed at strengthening this level of
capacity to ensure that Commune Councillors can do their job, and that they
can represent the interests of their local constituents effectively. Much of the
research conducted in Cambodia (eg by CDRI, PACT, DFID and Sida) has
also considered the extent to which the Commune Councils actually represent
the broad interests of their constituents rather than a local elite, and the
degree to which they are accountable.
5.2.3 Community Management
As well as the decentralization of development planning, Cambodia has also
supported community management of natural resources. The clearest
example of this comes from the fishery sector. Based on a Royal Decree in
2002 and the passing of a Sub-Decree in 2005, the Royal Government of
Cambodia (RGC) through the Fisheries Administration (FiA) under
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) has supported the
establishment of Community Fisheries (CFs) across the country, covering
inland and coastal fisheries. This process has also involved considerable
coordination with non-state partners – NGOs who have been engaged in such
approaches even before the royal decree, and also international aid donors. It
is important to note, that the policy drive towards promotion of community
management of fisheries was encouraged by an active civil society that had
already been promoting this approach to management of natural resources
(also in forestry), building on traditional management regimes and concerns
regarding commercial encroachment on fishery resources and intensifying
conflict among different resource users to the detriment of poorer fishers.
The central importance in policy of Community Fisheries is indicated by the
establishment of a Community Fisheries Division (CFD) within the Fisheries
Administration (FiA). Given the large number of actors involved in
community fisheries, there are attempts at improving coordination between
FiA and NGOs under the Technical Working Group on Fisheries (TWGF) and
FiA. The MRC has engaged in this process through the MRC Fisheries
Programme. The Fisheries TWG involves a number of NGOs – FACT, NGO
45
Forum, Oxfam and also UN agencies (FAO) and international research centres
(The WorldFish Centre).
Community Fisheries are required to elect a committee representing the
interests of fishers within their community, and to follow a process of
mapping their resource base, demarcating the boundaries of the community
fishery, and monitoring and assessing the resource base. However, again,
progress in implementing the formal recognition of Community Fisheries has
been mixed, with concerns about the capacity and effectiveness of the CFs
and the capacity of FiA and provincial fisheries officers (with limited
personnel and budgets) to provide support. But this approach to assessing
local resources and developing planning mechanisms is also relevant to the
Sub-Area analysis and scenario development of BDP.
While there have been attempts at establishing the legal framework for
community forestry in Cambodia for many years, these have not yet resulted
in the passing of legislation. Nevertheless, NGOs and government agencies
have been active in establishing such local institutions even in the absence of
the legal framework. This demonstrates that even within a loose policy and
legislative framework in Cambodia there is some space for collective action
among resource users and for collaboration with state agencies.
5.2.4 Water Resources
The lead agency for water resources management in Cambodia is the Ministry
of Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM) and is required to consult
with all other key agencies involved in water resources. (NB. While under
efforts at donor harmonization ministries are developing coordinating bodies
– Technical Working Groups - to bring together government agencies, donors
and NGOs to develop 5 year strategic plans and annual action plans,
MOWRAM does not have such a body in place.)
The Water Law is set within the framework of IWRM recognizing the
different sectoral interests in water, calling for greater coordination, and the
need to balance social and environmental considerations. As such the Water
Law includes several articles that deal directly with rights, organization, and
participation of water users. The main areas of stakeholder and public
participation are as follows:
collaboration with and participation of relevant agencies, private
sector, beneficiary groups, NGOs and International Organizations in
all activities related to the management, investment, exploitation,
conservation and development of water resources (Article 7);
46
ensuring availability of data and information free of charge to all
government agencies and other communities for the public interests
(Article 8);
guaranteeing the rights of every person to ‘use water resources for
his/her vital human need including drinking, washing, bathing and
other domestic purposes including watering for animal husbandry,
fishing and the irrigation of domestic gardens and orchards, in a
manner that will not affect other legal right of others (Article 11);
the right of farmers in the same irrigation system to form a Farmers’
Water User Community (FWUC) (Article 19).
In addition to the Water Law, under a policy commitment to Participatory
Irrigation Management and Development (PIMD) in Cambodia, the right of
farmers to organize collectively is recognized. Farmers Water User
Communities (FWUCs) are generally operational around large scale irrigation
schemes, and while their existence indicates a level of engagement in water
resource management, there have been questions as to how effective,
representative and responsive these FWUCs actually are in practice (Perrera
2006).
The National Water Resources Policy (2004) and the Sub-decree on River
Basin Management, also addresses public participation stating:
‘Procedures for planning and managing water resources development and use should
aim to uphold justice and equity, recognize the rights and values of members of the
community at large, and provide opportunity for persons who might be affected to be
consulted about and participate in planning and making decisions. The procedures
should be fully transparent (p. 5).
Additionally, all RGC agencies and committees involved in River Basin
Management are required inform the public, consult before implementing
Basin Management Plans and enable effective participation in planning and
managing water development and use (Article 21).
It is important to recognize that the Cambodia National Mekong Committee
is host institution of Cambodia Water Partnership (CamboWP), supports and
facilitates the activities of CamboWP for IWRM promotion and
implementation (Draft Statutes (2008) , has played a significant role in the
development of national water policy and continues to be a key player in the
provision of capacity building in IWRM services, in partnership with the
Global Water Partnership (GWP).
47
Cambodia is a signatory of the Ramsar Convention. While there is no specific
legal framework dedicated to wetland management, there have been efforts
from within the Ministry of Environment (MOE) to revitalize a draft National
Wetland Action Plan (NWAP) for approval that would both recognize the
importance of public participation in wetland resource management, and
make a connection between wetland and river basin management.
5.2.5 The Tonle Sap Authority (TSA)
An important development in the management of water resources in
Cambodia and the Mekong Basin has been the establishment of the Tonle Sap
Authority (TSA)(Royal Decree 29 June 2009). The TSA is responsible for
Coordination in managing, conserving, and developingi nthe Tonle Sap
Basin. The TSA has an advisory and communication role among all
stakeholders in the Tonle Sap Basin, and for developing a basin management
strategy. The Government Declaration (no.41 SSR dated 01 July 2009), defined
the composition of the TSA that chaired by H.E. Lim Kean Hor, Minister of
Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM) and Chairman of CNMC, its
members include representation from key line ministries and Governors of 8
provinces.
5.2.6 RBC Pilot Projects
The CNMC/CamboWP coordinates a number of initiatives aimed at
strengthening IWRM and the establishment of a pilot river basin institutions.
These activities are linked to Country Water Partnership (CamboWP) and
GWP, Cap-Net, and donors such as ADB. One example of piloting a
participatory approach to RBC establishment has been under the ADB funded
(phase 1 in 2008 and phase 2 in 2009-2010) for 4-Ps Basin located in Kratie and
Mondulkiri province, for establishment of Coordinating Committee for
Development and Management of 4-Ps Basin and applying IWRM by
building wider participation of national and sub-national stakeholders
including local NGOs and civil society; phase 2 to develop the 4-Ps Basin
Roadmap and investment initiatives for water and related resources
development and management of 4-Ps Basin. Although this has only been a
pilot project so far, the expectation is that this process of building up a RBC
through a process of consultation and participation will continue.
5.3 Summary of Assignment in Cambodia
The stakeholder assessment in Cambodia involved a series of semi-structured
interviews with known civil society stakeholders, and with some
organizations with overlapping interests. Given the high level of activity of
48
NGOs in Cambodia on Mekong and water resource issues, and a sometimes
tense relationship with the MRC, these groups were given high priority for
these interviews. In conducting the assessment in Cambodia effort was
focused on identifying mechanisms that would allow for building
constructive relationships as the basis for more long-term, sustained
engagement.
Much of the discussion with the CNMC and stakeholders also addressed
approaching inter-sectoral coordination in a complex, dynamic institutional
set-up, under the umbrella of IWRM.
A one-day consultation was held in Khamphong Thom. As this event tied in
with the preparation of annual work plans for the BDP in Cambodia the
majority of participants were the main national government partners of the
BDP, but a small number of Cambodian NGOs also joined the meeting.
Importantly this meeting re-affirmed the importance of stakeholder
participation in Cambodia.
5.3.1 Summary of Cambodian civil society organizations
Summary of Cambodian civil society organizations are presented in Annex I (for
internal use only).
5.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis
5.4.1 Relationships, Perceptions and Expectations
There is a huge range in terms of familiarity with, understandings and
perceptions of the MRC and the BDP among Cambodian civil society
stakeholders. Several organizations have a good understanding of the MRC
having been involved and observed with the MRC over a number of years.
Most of these organizations engage in advocacy, or are based within the
Sub-Areas in NE Cambodia. But many do not have much familiarity with
the MRC and even those involved in water related issues. In some ways this
indicates their perception of the importance and level of influence of the MRC
in Cambodia.
Indeed government representatives to the CNMC also raised concerns about
the influence of the MRC and CNMC in Cambodia. The institutional changes
in the water sector, particularly with the establishment of the Tonle Sap Basin
Authority and a history of difficult coordination among line agencies can be
seen to undermine the influence of CNMC. There are also questions about the
institutional capacity of the CNMC – with limited personnel and limited
49
budget. The Yali Falls dam is still seen as something of a test for the CNMC
and for the MRC in dealing with transboundary issues, and that despite
creating an MOU with the VNMC there is a widespread sense that the
MRC (including both the CNMC and VNMC) were largely ineffective.
The MRC does not appear to be well integrated into national planning
processes, and certainly not into the decentralization efforts. For many
observers, the CNMC is not seen as the most influential government actor in
the water resources sector in Cambodia.
None of the stakeholders interviewed during this assessment have a thorough
grasp of the structure of the MRC programmes. The BDP in particular is not
well understood. It seems that many of the government stakeholders who
were involved in BDP 1 expected ‘tangible outputs’ in the form of funded
projects. Consequently there is a sense of frustration that BDP 1 failed to
deliver what was expected, and that BDP 2 is moving ahead without critical
review of the experience of BDP 1. From these comments it is clear that there
are very different expectations of what BDP and the MRC is. The use of the
terms ‘project short list’ and ‘project long list’ are still interpreted to mean
funded projects, which are in turn often understood to mean infrastructure
projects. The range of interpretations of BDP creates all kinds of confusion on
what it is that stakeholders are participating in.
The MRC presents itself in ways that might appear contradictory – as a
knowledge-based institution, as a coordinator among government sectors, as
a facilitator of water resource management, and also as a mobiliser of funds
for development interventions. It is difficult for the MRC to engage with
stakeholders while also trying to balance apparently contradictory roles –
between facilitator and funding mobiliser.
This is all the more the case, when much of the intense debate in Cambodia is
about development values and alternative development pathways – such as
choices between maintaining a viable fishery and rural economies, and
hydropower development; or between large-scale hydropower development
and other energy options. If the MRC is seen as committed to a certain set of
development values it is difficult to have the kind of open-ended dialogue
that many of the civil society organisations are looking for.
There is however broad support for what the MRC could be – by playing a
leading role in regional, basin wide planning. Many stakeholders have also
commented on the important role the MRC has played in generating
information. But as discussed there are also frustrations. In general all
stakeholders are keen to engage with the MRC.
50
There are many opportunities for engaging with a very wide group of civil
society stakeholders. The NGO coordination mechanisms provide access to
advice, information, and a relatively straightforward mechanism for
identifying local stakeholders and relevant NGO projects. This is also a
mechanism for raising the profile of the MRC and of Mekong Basin IWRM
challenges and issues. Such forums include – NGO Coordination Committee,
IUCN MRWD, WWF Dry Forests, and the IDRC/CDRI/CBNRM-LI
Development Research Forum.
The Technical Working Groups of various ministries provide additional
opportunities for integrating the work of the MRC into the routine planning
of the government, and also for ensuring coordination, sharing of information
and technical advice.
There is broad agreement from the government and civil society side that
while the institutional structure of the CNMC (comprising different
government agencies) cannot be amended, membership of the Sub Area
Working Groups can be expanded to include civil society representatives.
There is also agreement that the technical work of the MRC in Cambodia
could also be opened up to some form of advisory group – that could be
formalized – that would draw on expertise from research institutions and
NGOs.
It is important to acknowledge that there are potentially serious tensions that
would need to be overcome. From the government side while there is a
recognition of the potential value of stakeholder participation there is also
apprehension that engagement will be confrontational and merely expose the
government to criticism, that may or may not be justified. From the civil
society perspective, there is apprehension that the space for participation will
be so constrained as to deny opportunity for constructive engagement. It is
clear that many NGOs do not feel comfortable in a workshop environment
in the presence of very senior government officials, and in such
circumstances will not engage freely.
These challenges need to be addressed. The first and most obvious step is for
both sides to get to know each other better, and to understand their
viewpoints and constraints. This kind of engagement should be relatively
informal, and perhaps facilitated against a set of simple rules of engagement –
such as, listening without criticizing, identifying points of agreement.
There was some discussion whether an independent host could be identified
for holding a Mekong water forum. While this is being attempted under the
51
IUCN MRWD project, it is felt that another body could host such a process
that could include small roundtable discussions, as well as larger events.
CDRI has been identified as one possible host for such engagement.
There is vast experience among civil society of working at the local level in
participatory ways – undertaking analysis of challenges and identifying
actions, building networks of resource users, linking them to local
planning processes (Commune Councils etc). This kind of capacity is of
immense value to the MRC as it tries to introduce participatory approaches
into its more technical work. The National League of Commune Councils and
Sangkat (NLCS) could play a role in sharing information about the MRC’s
work in Cambodia.
Within the NGO community, there is a wealth of experience and technical
capacity of applying participatory approaches, and of developing networks of
local people. These provide great opportunities to expand the level of
stakeholder participation and reach grassroots levels in consultation and
dialogue activities, and also in the more technical assessment work.
Technical Working Groups (TWGs) could provide a mechanism for
coordination of activities, building on existing activities under different
agencies, also a mechanism for identifying different activities in the Sub-
Areas, and for sharing and disseminating information. The potential for
establishing a TWG on IWRM should also be explored – but given that this
process would inevitably take time this should not be an immediate priority.
5.4.2 Cambodia Opportunities – Willing, Able & Allowed
5.4.2.a. From MRC Perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Generally supportive of
civil society
participation in
activities of BDP - but
with the caveat that it
should be constructive,
and not too critical of
the government.
Tend to regard
participation in terms of
Generally some
familiarity with
engaging with civil
society in meetings and
events, but not familiar
with working
collaboratively (e.g. in
assessments)
Some good
participatory experience
The government
approved structure of
the National Working
Groups does not allow
for civil society
membership
Establishing advisory
body through existing
networks would be
possible – eg TWGs,
52
consultation
Supportive of civil
society providing some
input as advisory body
at national and Sub
Area levels
from other projects (e.g.
ADB 4 P project)
CCC
5.4.2.b. From Civil Society Perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Generally supportive of
the notion of the MRC
as being a neutral body
able to coordinate
national water resources
management according
to principles of
sustainability and
equity at a river basin
scale
General perception that
the MRC has been
relatively ineffective
and is relatively weak
player within the
government system –
but have high
expectations of what the
MRC could be
Questions about the
level of commitment to
engage – when engaged
previously, often been
silent.
Generally see the need
for a neutral
organization to generate
scientifically credible
Civil society
organizations have
some very clear areas of
skills and expertise
Well established
networks – among
NGOs and academia,
and supporting
networks of local people
Majority of
organizations are not
aware of the structures
and functions of MRC,
programmes and NMCs
– and hold different
interpretations of what
the MRC is and should
be.
For many local
organizations much of
the technical work of
MRC is not easily
grasped. Engagement
would therefore require
some capacity building
Increasingly engaging in
multi-stakeholder
Policy and law – on
IWRM, decentralization
etc – clearly spell out
space for stakeholder
participation – but
serious questions about
application in practice
Some political space to
discuss controversial
issues but nonetheless
concerns about the
accessibility of certain
types of information,
particularly regarding
hydropower
development, land
concessions etc
53
information and
facilitate dialogue
Stakeholder
participation that allows
for poorer and
marginalized groups to
represent their interests
is seen as a means and
an end of good
development
Many organizations
have very specific
interests, with expertise
in (participatory)
research and facilitation
– hydropower
dialogue, but not all
civil society
organizations have the
same capacity to engage
in and facilitate
dialogue between
different stakeholders
5.5 Recommendations (Cambodia)
5.5.1 Improve understanding MRC and knowledge of stakeholders
The civil society organizations that have the clearest understanding of the
MRC are those involved in advocacy. Yet even for these organizations, there
are many aspects of the MRC that are not clear, and many sources of
confusion and misunderstanding. For other organizations virtually nothing
is known of the MRC. In order to be able to build relationships it is essential
that the MRCS and CNMC improve communications – both informally and
formally.
The personal contact between CNMC and civil society could easily be
improved. One possible option would be for CNMC to make informal
presentations to explain the MRC, its structure, function and the
operation of the programmes. Such presentations could be done with
individual organsiations or groups of organizations, or even through
coordinating bodies. There are specific issues relating to BDP rather
than the MRC as a whole, and it would be worth organising a special
session on the BDP – that would include a review of BDP 1, and
explanation of changes from BDP 1 to BDP 2.
Preparation of communications materials in Khmer is a high priority.
Many civil society organizations are able to present their material in
English and Khmer and it would not involve too great a cost burden.
54
5.5.2 Expand membership of Sub-Area Working Groups
The suggestion to expand membership of the Sub-Area Working Groups
arose in national roundtable discussions, and has the support of the CNMC
and civil society representatives. There are a lot of different organizations
active in each of the Sub-Areas. It would be possible to expand membership
based on general interests and also on thematic areas (e.g. irrigation,
fisheries).
Given the large number of potential organizations this would require
substantial planning and consultation with support from MRCS, to define the
scope and responsibilities.
Given the presence of the ADB involvement in Sub-Area 7C (the Sesan Basin)
through the 4P project and the 3S Study, both of which are managed by the
CNMC, targeting the 7C Sub-Area Working Group might be the logical place
to start. In this way technical support could also be provided by the ADB and
MRCS, with the engagement focused on issues of dialogue and participation.
This would also provide a source of funding. Lessons learned from this
experience could then be transferred to other Sub-Areas.
5.5.3 CNMC participate in existing forum, coordination mechanisms
The existing mechanisms for donor harmonization and NGO coordination
provide good opportunities for the CNMC to raise the profile of their work, to
seek technical advice and to build partnerships. Building a relationship
through these existing mechanisms would not require the CNMC to make
any significant institutional changes to its structure in the country but would
have the additional benefit of bringing the MRC work in Cambodia more into
line with other planning mechanisms.
For example, the CNMC could target the TWGs on Fisheries, and on
Agriculture and Irrigation. These TWGs could ultimately take on a more
structured role of providing technical advice.
In order to improve linkages with Commune Councils the CNMC could
also explore partnership with the National League of Commune Councils
and Sangkat (NLCS) – and at very least, use the NLCS as a communications
mechanism for reaching out to Commune Councils in the Sub-Areas. The
NGO Coordination mechanisms also provide means to improve
communications, identify local stakeholders, and also seek technical advice,
particularly on issues of social development, poverty reduction and
participation.
55
An additional source of technical advice would be through the Development
Research Forum (led by CDRI and CBNRM-LI) that already has an interest in
issues related to water resource management and public participation. If
organized the DRF could become the basis for a national research symposium
related to issues of concern to the MRC.
5.5.4 Establish a National Advisory Body in Cambodia
The number of organizations involved in water related work means that
establishing an advisory body in Cambodia has great potential. Many of the
organizations discussed above, as well as those from the development
community, would be potential members of such a body.
5.5.5 Provide support for civil society to present concerns and
recommendations to CNMC
As well as the CNMC leading consultation efforts the CNMC could open
space for civil society to present their interests and research findings more
formally to the MRC. Such an event could be planned jointly but with input
determined by each party.
5.5.6 National Dialogue on Mekong
There is considerable interest in developing a mechanism for national
dialogue on water resource related issues including issues of land use change
in the Mekong among all parties. But it is also widely acknowledged that
such a dialogue would need to be facilitated by a relatively neutral body
and that the MRC should not take on this role. This consultancy has not
identified such an organization, but possible organizations might include
CDRI or UNDP. This would need further consultation and considerable
planning to ensure that the dialogue was able to address controversial issues
but to do so in a spirit of constructive engagement.
Two key issues have emerged for such a national dialogue:
i.) an examination of the feasibility of various energy supply and
demand options for Cambodia
ii.) ii) an examination of hydropower development, fisheries and
livelihoods
It is recommended that these two topics are targeted for such a dialogue and
that this is scheduled for 2009.
56
6. LAO PDR
6.1 Introduction and Overview
Participation appears in national development discourse but within a
particular framework – largely in terms of assisting the government carry out
its mandate, and of assisting the government to reach a wider group of
people.
There have been policy changes that create space for stakeholder
participation. Recent policy changes have authorized the establishment of
local associations – often focusing on awareness raising and education, in
order to support implementation of government policy, and ensure greater
reach of government initiatives in rural areas. But although the number of
such associations is by all reports growing, there appear to be far less than in
the other Mekong countries.
IWRM has a long history in Laos. There has been a renewed drive to
strengthen inter-sectoral coordination from within the government with the
restructuring of water resources agencies, and the creation of the Water
Resources and Environment Administration under the Prime Ministers
Office. However there is limited experience of implementing IWRM at the
river basin level, and consequently limited experience of engaging
stakeholders in the process of IWRM. The main target for developing IWRM
is the Nam Ngum river basin given the pressing development challenges and
importance of the basin’s water resources for national development.
The two main national development priorities in Laos are eradication of
poverty and ensuring food security - and the promotion of hydropower to
generate electricity for export and revenue for national development.
Balancing these two policy imperatives is a subject of increasingly keen
discussion in Laos.
6.2 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Lao
PDR
6.2.1 Water Resources
There has been important progress in the development of water resource
policy and planning in Lao PDR. Building on the Law on Water and Water
Resources (1996) and an implementing Decree (2001), the Preparation of a
National Water Sector Strategy and Action Plan (1998) and the Establishment
of the Water Resources Coordination Committee (WRCC) in 1997 as an apex
57
body, the Government of the Lao PDR established the Water Resources and
Environment Administration (WREA) under the Prime Minister’s Office
(PMO) in a move to improve coordination across different state agencies and
sectoral interests, and to further the implementation of IWRM in Laos.
WREA now has responsibility for coordinating the water sector and for
developing national water resource policy and strategy between 2008 and
2010, as an update to the Water Law of 1996. Currently key policy directions
for the water sector in the Lao PDR are the priorities given to improving
agricultural productivity and reducing poverty, as well to developing
hydropower as a means for generating revenue.
WREA includes 6 departments:
a Cabinet Office for the Minister;
an Environment Department;
the Department for Environmental Impact Assessment;
Department for Water Resources;
The Water Resources & Environment Institute;
Department of Meteorology and Hydrology (DMH);
Lao National Mekong Committee Secretariat (LNMCS).
The Lao National Mekong Committee (LNMC) has also been absorbed into
the structure of WREA. The Minister of WREA is also the Chair of the LNMC.
The responsibilities of the LNMC have changed towards a coordination
function between the MRC and the divisions within WREA that have
responsibility for areas of work related to MRC. The national BDP has been
absorbed as a project under the Water Resources Management Division
(under the Department of Water Resources) – with the area of work of the
BDP, data gathering, scenario development and sub-area analysis
incorporated – with the additional responsibility of supporting the planning
for the establishment of RBOs in Laos. In this way BDP is seen as having
been absorbed into national planning within Laos.
WREA operates with about 363 staffs (WERA, 2009) and 100 consultants and
contractors (ADB 2007) limited technical capacity and high pressure on their
skills, time and resources. As a result financial and technical support to
WREA is being provided by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank
and AusAID.
58
At provincial level WREA is being set up to take over the old functions of the
Science, technology and Environment Agency (STEA) and data collection
operations of DMH, with a District unit of WREA to be established.
The structure of the Sub-Area Working Group at each of the provinces brings
together the already established Provincial Planning and Investment Division
and Provincial WREA representatives of each of the provinces in the Sub-
Areas.
Under the Decree on Establishment of WREA, public participation occurs
under several areas for example, in raising social awareness on water
resources and conservation, and in providing awards to individuals or
communities and organizations which have shown good performance for
water resource and environment protection. The Decision on Establishment of
Water Resources Department in Lao PDR (No: 1410/PMO-WREA ) from 2008
states responsibilities as including:
Article 3.9 develop and implement consultation and participation mechanisms of all
related parties and people in order to ensure justified and sustainable water resources
utility and management
Additionally Article 3.15 addresses how to deal with community complaints,
while Article 3.18 promotes networks to exchange knowledge in IWRM.
6.2.2 Land Allocation
Land allocation is recognized as the driving force behind food security and
the eradication of poverty. Land allocations have framed the swidden
agriculture that is synonymous to poverty alleviation, and is a key area that is
important in the integration of land and water resources in IWRM model.
According to Chamberlain et al (2002) and the Committee for Planning and
Investment with the National Statistics Center, 72 poor districts were founded
upon the Participatory Poverty Assessment. Areas highlighted as poor are
largely ethnic groups and are classified as remote mountainous communities.
There was a study conducted for the MRC in 2006-2007 examining how
villages in Lao PDR could participate in water resource decisions under
IWRM framework. The findings showed that no participatory activities were
found at a village level that involved IWRM institutions. In so doing, several
questions remain by the civil society in Lao PDR regarding the MRC’s vision
of participation on how to outline the level and degree of public participation
that meaningfully include these groups - and how MRC think it is
59
appropriate to integrate these groups and the land allocation issue into IWRM
decision making framework?
6.2.3 River Basin Organizations
The clearest example of experimentation in the establishment of a River Basin
Organization (RBO) comes from the Nam Ngum basin. With support from
ADB Nam Ngum River Basin Organization is something of a pilot RBO. The
future development and establishment of RBOs will be led by the Water
Resources Management Division. Therefore, with supported from ADB, the
Nam Ngum River Basin Committee (NNRBC) was established by the Water
Resources Management Division to coordinate and advise provincial
governors on planning and management of water resources in the Nam
Ngum Basin. Member of the committee are a representative from relevance
government agencies at provincial, central and district levels.
6.2.4 The Irrigation Development
While irrigation is still somewhat limited in Laos, there has been a dramatic
expansion of land area under irrigation from 50,000 hectares in 1997 to
120,000 hectares in 2007 (DOI, 2008). Although concentrated in the central and
southern part of the country, these efforts (along with agriculture research
successes on rice varieties improvement) significantly contributed to increase
rice production. In 2000 the GOL declared national rice self-sufficiency.
However, there is still some food insecurity in some areas especially in the
mountainous and remote areas. The government has largely invested in the
construction of irrigation system. There was large participation from local
communities. So an Irrigation Management Transfer policy and regulations
were developed and applied. The Water Users Groups (WUGs) and Water
User Associations (WUAs) were established in almost irrigation schemes.
Despite the impressive results in recent years, the production in irrigated
areas has been somewhat decreased. There are questions related to the
efficiency and effectiveness of irrigation performance. As a result the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry has issued recently the Position paper with five
Policy Directions with are for the irrigation strategy:
Adopt the perception of irrigation as irrigated agriculture;
Develop irrigated agriculture economic activities in irrigated
agriculture focal areas, especially within the seven major plains and
fourteen minor plains;
60
Support the formation of farmer production and new form of
agriculture cooperatives that operate under product value chains link
to agro-industries and services;
Study new model for public management that are adequate under
new perception in irrigation development;
Improve and develop laws and regulatory framework to support the
new public management model under the new perception.
6.2.5 Area Based Planning
Promoting an area based approach to watershed management has been a key
policy of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in Laos. For
MAFF, the current policy target is that by 2010 Integrated Watershed
Management (IWM) will have been developed for all provinces and districts
across the country. In 2004 eight pilots had been established.
6.2.6 National Nutrition Committee
Addressing food security and nutrition remains a central policy objective of
the GOL. Previously food issues were divided according to institutional lines
– with food security the responsibility of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAF) and nutrition the responsibility of Ministry of Public Health. In
October 2008 a National Nutrition Committee was established in order to
ensure greater coordination between different state agencies responsible
various dimensions of food production (including land and water resources)
as well other agencies.
6.2.7 Participatory Poverty Assessment in Laos
A clear indication of the how participation appears in Laos can be seen
from the history of Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) that began
under donor and NGO initiatives in the late 1990s and that are now being
absorbed into national policy and practice. (Notes based on interviews with
Ms Phonevanh OUTHAVONG, Deputy DG of Committee for Planning and
Investment, General Planning Department, Ministry of Planning and
Investment)
The PPA approach was developed during the process of preparing the
National Economic and Social Development Plan (2006-2010) in 2004 with
financial and technical support from UNDP. With the approval of the
National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES) in 2003 the
National Committee on Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation
61
(NCRDPA) was established, with the NGPES being merged into the National
Economic and Social Development Board (NESDP) in 2006.
The GOL has identified 72 poor districts across the country according to
criteria established under the NGPES that include food security and nutrition
(measured as 2100 k/cal) (Ministry of Planning and Investment in 2003), and
according to household monthly expenditure per person (at 2001 prices
averaging as less than 85 000 kip/month or about 9 US$/month at rate
9500kip/$).
The PPA has been implemented as a pilot exercise since 2007. Under this pilot
68 Kum baan (sub-district) from 56 Core Districts of the 72 poor districts are
being targeted. The selection of kum baan is based on guidance by District and
Province.
The process is being led by the Department of Planning, working with the
four key ministries of Education, Public Health, Agriculture and
Transportation. This team from central government then works with a similar
line agency structure at Province and District training teams in the PPA
approach.
Currently the approach and manual that is being applied is being updated
with the expectation that a unified manual will be approved by the Minister
in 2009.
The PPA approach is applied to identify issues and solutions, generating
project proposals that can be presented to District and Province for approval
and either for financial support from existing funds, or to seek funding from
donors and development partners. As such the PPA feeds into national efforts
at donor harmonization and national ownership as stated in the Vientiane
Declaration.
Development planning in Lao PDR – working across national, provincial,
district and village levels - has increasingly assigned responsibility to the
provincial level to encourage bottom-up planning, establishing a planning
linkage between Provinces, Districts and Villages. Provinces are required to
have their own 5 Year Strategic Plans as well as their own annual
implementation plans and budgets. Under this structure Districts operate as
the main planning unit, and Villages as main implementation unit. In this
structure Village Chiefs (nai ban) operate as representatives of local interest.
Along with these local institutional arrangements, Mass Organizations have
also been established by the state, including the Lao Women’s Union
(LWU), the Lao Front for National Construction, and the Lao Youth Union.
62
The Constitution of the Lao PDR affirms that the power of the state is of and
for the people of all ethnicity, that citizens have the rights to make complaints
and petitions.
To some degree, villages are able to establish their own collective
management regimes for natural resources with the support of Districts. For
example, community fisheries have been established in many parts of Laos,
particularly the South, despite the absence of appropriate legislation. This has
largely occurred with the support of international NGOs such as CESVI,
WWF and IUCN.
6.3 Summary of Assignment in Lao PDR
The assignment in Laos involved a series of interviews with government
agencies, international NGOs with a long history of activity in Laos, both
from the environmental conservation sector and the development sector, as
well as limited interviews with local organizations. A national roundtable
discussion was held for one day in Tha Lat, Vientiane Province bringing
together the main government agencies that have been involved with the BDP
process as well as one international NGO. Interviewees were conducted by
the International Consultant, BDP Sociologist, and the Junior Riparian
Professional.
6.3.1 Summary of Lao civil society organizations
Summary of Lao civil society organizations are presented in Annex II (forinternal use
only).
6.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis
6.4.1 Relationships, Perceptions and Expectations
There is a limited number of civil society stakeholders operating in Laos. The
vast majority are international NGOs, but there is also a growing number of
local organizations that have been established recently. On the whole, the
organsiations that are well known to the MRC are those that have a strong
water and environment focus – such as IUCN, WWF and IWMI. Generally
there is not much of a link with the various NGOs involved in social
development.
While there is some recognition of participation in national policy and
planning, and some examples of how ‘participation’ of resources users and
63
local people has been addressed (e.g. in PPAs, Community Fisheries etc) some
interviewees suggested that the full potential of effective participation is
not broadly recognised across all state agencies.
Promoting participation and strengthening the capacity of local grassroots
organizations and resources users are key areas of support for INGOs from
various sectors – whether environment, food security or health. These
organizations have capacity in participatory approaches and their own
networks of local resource users, and are therefore able to act as facilitators
for local consultation and assessment.
Hydropower is at the heart of water resource management debated in Laos.
For some government stakeholders, such as Ministry of Industry, Mine and
Energy (MIME), stakeholder participation is seen from this perspective in
terms of how to ensure the rapid implementation of planned hydropower
projects. Yet there are also concerns that hydropower, along with mining
and logging, have potential social and environmental impacts that need to
be assessed, and a perception that the Lao government is struggling to
manage the rapid expansion of these kinds of development.
Among both government and civil society stakeholders, there are concerns
about how to address the potential negative social and environmental impacts
of current regional and national development, and issues of long-term
sustainability, and inequality. Food security is one of the main priorities of
many stakeholders, and is seen as being intimately linked to natural
resource management.
The very high dependence of Lao people on natural resources means that
these issues have a high profile social development dimension, and many of
these organizations include a natural resource management component in
their projects. This often includes issues such as watershed management,
irrigation, fisheries and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Research over
many years has highlighted how natural resources degradation, including
loss of access to productive natural resources, is a contributory factor to
people’s poverty and vulnerability. Such degradation is clearly associated
with land concessions, changes in land use, and a legal system that is
increasingly stretched.
In Laos, perhaps more than the other countries, is a sense of frustration with
the BDP. Expectations of BDP 1 were that the programme would provide a
vehicle for the government to access funding to implement projects identified
under the BDP long-list and short-list. It is now recognized that this is not the
64
function of BDP but there appears to be some lingering disappointment from
the side of government line agencies.
From government stakeholders there was a clear expectation that BDP 1
would identify sources of funding for short-listed projects and the failure
to do so is seen as a failure of the BDP. While it is known that the role of
MRC and BDP has changed and is no longer that of an investment facilitator
(as previously asserted) there is certainly some expectation that it should be.
The changing institutional structure around water resources with the
creation of WREA and the implications for the LNMC is not well
understood. While the LNMC has certainly been active within the water
sector its presence is less visible in the broader development community.
There are clear opportunities for improving the profile of the MRC/LNMC
and strengthening linkages with a variety of organisations.
There are several initiatives going on in Laos that would be useful for LNMC.
The work of WWF in Sekong is closely associated with establishing networks
of community resources users across a river basin scale, and as such provides
a testing ground for building some kind of river basin forum, that could be an
opportunity for stakeholder participation and even a precursor to a river
basin management institution. Although in its early stages, the IUCN Mekong
Region Water Dialogues programme (MRWD) could provide an opportunity
for the LNMC to engage with a range of stakeholders and again, better
present itself.
6.4.2 Lao Opportunities – Willing, Able & Allowed
6.4.2.a. From MRC Perspective
Willing Able Allowed
The main emphasis so
far has been on
coordination with
government agencies.
Growing recognition of
the potential value of
broader stakeholder
participation and
engagement with NGOs
Limited number of staff
within WREA and
LNMC
New institutional
arrangements are
stretching the existing
institutions
Mostly technical
expertise – less
State policy emphasizes
the need for bottom up
planning from the
village through to the
District and up. It is
supportive of some
degree of stakeholder
participation.
But there are
institutional challenges
65
Some interviewees
commented that the
BDP provides an
opportunity to
demonstrate the value
of stakeholder
participation to
planning processes with
other government
agencies
experience in
participatory
approaches
to organizing public
forum
6.4.2.b. From Civil Society Perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Civil society keen to see
the MRC play a role as a
source of data,
information and advice,
and to be proactive in
facilitating debate about
water resources
Two main areas of
interest are in poverty
reduction, as well as
water resources
Interest in advisory
roles and establishing
think tank around
poverty and water
Substantial expertise in
participatory
approaches related to
dimensions of poverty,
and also to natural
resource management
(viz forests and
fisheries)
Limited technical
expertise related to
IWRM and river basin
approaches
The need to bring in a
balance of different
stakeholder
representatives – for
example, from local
organizations,
academia, the
monkhood
NGOs have an
established relationship
with government
agencies and provincial
authorities – and a clear
role to play in
supporting the
government to meet its
development targets
Technical support to the
government is
encouraged
6.5 Recommendations (Lao PDR)
The role of the MRC needs to be clarified for stakeholders to be better placed
to understand the opportunities and potential value of more engagement
66
with the MRC. Several issues were raised during the stakeholder analysis to
which the MRC needs to respond:
6.5.1 Improving understanding of MRC, LNMC and BDP
From government partners there is a continuing confusion around
BDP’s role, and whether the BDP 2 will be a vehicle for identifying
donor funding for projects. Following from this, is a clear request for a
review of BDP 1 – to identify the level of support to short-list projects.
BDP will need to clarify its role in relation to this expectation and to
develop effective communications tools to represent itself.
There is a clear need for more regular, semi-formal engagement with a
broader group of stakeholders in order to discuss expectations and
identify potential opportunities. It is recommended that this process
starts with some of the organizations identified in this assessment.
LNMC and BDP need to address communications as a priority. There
is an additional requirement in Laos to ensure that documents are
translated and presented in ways that will be easily understandable.
LNMC needs to develop its own data-base (as a contribution to the
MRCS/BDP database). Information on NGO and donor funded
projects is easily accessible from INGO networks, and also from
provincial levels. Such a database would allow LNMC to identify
additional stakeholders and partners.
6.5.2 Building relations with existing government and INGO
Networks
The BDP should take advantage of the INGO Working Groups as
potential sources of information, technical advice and linkages to local
stakeholders. It is recommended that BDP arranges a series of
informal discussions to be followed by formal presentation of BDP to
the members of the Working Groups. An additional subject of
discussion should be the potential for establishing an INGO Working
Group on Water Resources and Livelihoods (see below).
The BDP should engage with government working groups and
committees, and present its own work as part of the regular
government system. In particular activities such as updating the Sub-
Area profiles and conducting assessments of potential impacts of
water resources infrastructure development should be linked to
ongoing government-led assessment efforts, such as the PPAs.
67
The BDP should discuss how the PPA methods and approaches can be
adopted within the PIP for 2009 – both as a means to generate high
quality information, and as a mechanism for greater local stakeholder
participation.
6.5.3 National IWRM Working Group to be established – with links
to NGOs
All stakeholders – government, NGO and academic – expressed enthusiasm
for establishing a National Working Group that would address IWRM and
poverty reduction/sustainable livelihoods. There are several existing
mechanisms that would allow for such a working group – for example, taking
advantage of the ways of working of the INGO Network’s Working Group
approach. This should allow for full participation of a range of stakeholders
and to build linkages with those outside the immediate IWRM sector. While
the duties, roles and responsibilities would need to be discussed and agreed
among the members, it is recommended that the WG should be a body that
among other responsibilities could provide technical advice to the National
Working Groups, provide up to date information and analysis, provide
technical assistance, coordinate input from member organizations into BDP
field activities, and provide a mechanism for facilitating multi-stakeholder
dialogue.
Linkages between water, land and poverty – therefore clear opportunities to
link with existing NGO Working Groups.
6.5.3.a. Sub-Area Advisory Group
In each of the Lao Sub-Areas there are a number of organizations and project
that are active, and that could provide valuable input to the assessment work
and the consultation process. Inventories of such projects can be found at the
INGO Network, as well as with provincial and district authorities. An initial
step would be to identify these projects and prepare an LNMC database, and
then to begin discussions regarding their interest in engaging with the Sub-
Area level work, and how such organizations might be able to contribute to
the LNMC.
6.5.3.b. Strategic Planning with key stakeholders
Several projects in Laos provide an opportunity for BDP to link with local
groups of resources users – such as community fisheries (e.g. WWF Sekong
and Attapeu, JVC, ACF), Village Health Volunteer Networks and WATSAN
Committees (Health Unlimited), and to utilize capacity of local people in
68
conducting participatory assessments and planning exercises (e.g. Concern).
This would require specific planning sessions to identify areas of shared
interest and where appropriate, joint work plans.
6.5.3.c. Pilot projects
The need to develop capacities and skills through practicing stakeholder
participation came up as a clear recommendation from the national
roundtable meeting. There are several options to address this
recommendation. One approach would be to piggy-back on currently funded
projects – for example, the ADB funded 3S study (promoting consultative
workshops and river basin visioning in Sekong, Sesan and Srepok river basins
in partnership with the CNMC and VNMC) would provide one possible
testing ground. An additional testing ground, might be with the WWF
Sekong Basin project. Another approach would be to develop a project
proposal under which the LNMC would lead the testing of stakeholder
participation. Such a proposal could indeed be developed out of experience
piloting stakeholder participation within the framework of existing projects.
69
7. THAILAND
7.1 Introduction and Overview
Civil society in Thailand is highly active, with a high degree of engagement in
national water resources, environment and social development, and also an
active regional profile.
Public participation is very much on the state agenda with strong supporting
policy and institutions – but of course, intense scrutiny and criticism of the
effectiveness of such participation.
Thailand also has a 20-year history of promoting IWRM and the
establishment of river basin organizations. Stakeholder participation is a
requirement of these organizations. However, progress on establishment of
effective river basin organizations has been mixed, and the capacity and
commitment of the state often questioned. But this has also been
acknowledged by the state, and there are moves to further strengthen
stakeholder participation, particularly within the establishment of RBCs.
As well as the policy drive towards IWRM, Thailand has undergone a major
bureaucratic reform and decentralization process. Local elected institutions at
Sub-district level now have the responsibility and budgets for local resources
management and local development, again with a requirement for effective
stakeholder participation.
Although there continue to be concerns and criticisms as to the
effectiveness of stakeholder participation in practice, recent reviews
suggest that it is in the area of stakeholder participation that there has been
greatest progress with these organizations.
Within Thailand, there is also a huge number of individual organizations –
grassroots groups, local associations, networks of resource users and NGOs.
Many of these groups are experienced and well organized. Many of these
have strong regional and international networks.
These groups are very diverse – from advocacy groups that are reluctant to
engage with the MRC, to other organizations who although critical of the
MRC do engage, and see the MRC as an important forum for regional debate.
The role of Thai civil society is also significant for its involvement in regional
issues, and its support to emerging civil society in the neighbouring countries.
70
As a source or investment and also as a market for hydropower
development, Thailand is likely to be an influential player within the
region.
Although the Mekong Basin in Thailand covers an area with a reasonably
high population, the Mekong is not as prominent an issue in national policy
debates as in other countries (viz Lao PDR and Cambodia). The MRC and the
TNMC’s mandate is thus rather limited within Thailand, and thus its
visibility is also rather limited. However at the local level, through BDP 1
activities MRC is reasonably well known among a range of stakeholders, yet
the understanding of the BDP itself is still rather limited, and in some cases
unclear.
The TNMC has been able to work with local NGOs and river basin
committees and through these organizations reach a wide audience. For those
organizations working within the Thai Mekong, the TNMC is regarded as an
important government stakeholder among a wide number of government
agencies with water-related responsibilities, and thus the TNMC is involved
in a wide range of activities led by civil society, as well as the activities it
leads itself. The TNMC often plays a role of supporting linkages and
exchange between these civil society led initiatives within Thailand and
across the region.
7.2 Summary of Assignment in Thailand
The stakeholder assessment in Thailand addressed regional organizations and
issues, as well as specifically Thai issues. The assessment began with
participation in the regional civil society meeting organized at Chulalongkorn
University in late 2008 that brought together NGO representatives from all
Mekong countries, as well as representatives of the Thai government and the
MRCS.
Many of the civil society organizations active on Mekong issues are well-
known to the MRC, having participated in various meetings and events, and
having also been involved in raising issues of concern directly with the MRC.
As well as conducting interviews (both face-to-face and on the telephone)
with these organizations, additional effort was directed towards identifying
new, less familiar organizations.
A national round table discussion was held in Bangkok that brought together
the TNMC, central government line agencies, and a small number of
representatives of river basin committees, and representatives of NGOs and
grassroots organizations. This discussion allowed for a review of experience
71
in the other countries and to consider the progress on stakeholder
participation in the context of IWRM in Thailand, and the future potential.
7.2.1 Summary of Thai civil society organizations
Summary of Thai civil society organization are presented in Summary of Thai key
civil society organizations are presented in Annex III (for internal use).
7.3 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in
Thailand
7.3.1 National Planning
The main strategic planning mechanism for Thailand is the National
Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) that is prepared every five
years by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). For
several rounds of planning the NESDPs have recognized the importance of
public participation and also the management and conservation of natural
resources including water, forests and fisheries.
The most dramatic reform of the national planning process came about in the
2002 Bureaucratic Reform Act which affirmed the central role of elected sub-
district organizations, the Tambon Administration Organization (TAO) as
being responsible for local level development and natural resource
management. Much of the central budget is now directed to the TAO with the
line agencies at district and province now required to provide technical
assistance in the implementation of TAO development plans. The TAOs are
thus the main planning mechanism at the local level and the main formal
institution for local participation in planning processes.
While TAOs have the responsibility for local development and natural
resource management, much of the investment to date has been on local
infrastructure – such as local roads, schools etc, rather than in social
development or natural resource management. However, there is growing
evidence that this trend is changing with many TAO increasingly engaging in
broader local development.
7.3.2 Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand and Public Participation
Public participation is affirmed in the 1997 Constitution and reaffirmed in the
2007 Constitution – specifically defines the rights of local communities to
participate in preservation and exploitation of natural resources and
participate in decision making processes, as well as the rights of individuals
72
to access information, and to form associations. The concept of public
participation is now central to national policy across the sectors, and is
readily articulated by government agents at all levels as a key requirement
of state policy and practice. However, the interpretation and application of
concepts of participation vary considerably.
There is also a wide range of civil society institutions active in Thailand.
These cover a wide range of interests and include for example, local
associations, organic farmers groups and networks, charitable organizations,
community radio stations, and networks of schoolchildren involved
biodiversity monitoring. Academic institutions, whether national or
provincial, are also active – particularly in the areas of Thailand that fall
under the Lower Mekong Basin.
7.3.3 Water Resources
The development of IWRM has a long history in Thailand. In 1999 a process
of multi-stakeholder dialogues, seminars and workshops involve state
agencies, NGOs, academics and water users groups produced the National
Water Vision (Apichart undated), translated into a nine-point policy
programme during further multi-stakeholder dialogue in 2000, that was then
endorsed by the government in National Water Policy October 2000 (Apichart
undated). In 2001 with Cabinet approval, the DWR selected 29 sub-basins (of
these 25 major basins) as pilot projects for development of IWRM plans and
for their implementation. By 2007, these 29 RBCs were established (DWR
2007), with the organizational structure of these RBCs changing to
accommodate greater grassroots participation. The extent to which these
RBCs have completed plans is not clear, but the RBC planning process is
intended to involve stakeholders in the preparation, identifying needs,
problems and suggested solutions. In order to rationalize these RBCs and
improve stakeholder participation the DWR is now reducing the number of
RBCs in major basins to 25 by combining upper and lower RBCs within the
larger basins (e.g. Ping River Basin).
In addition to these larger scale river basins, 254 sub-basins have been
identified, with Sub-Basin Committees now being established. For observers
there are also questions as to the degree of meaningful participation at river
basin level, and in the development and implementation of large
infrastructure projects (Hirsch and Morck Jensen 2006). Recent reviews
undertaken with supervision of TNMC and DWR conclude that there is a
need to improve stakeholder participation in RBCs and increasing the
proportion of civil society representatives within RBCs.
73
The establishment of RBCs in Thailand has continued despite not having
finalized a water law. The National Water Law is currently being drafted and
is said to be ready to be presented for approval shortly. The drafting was
required to follow a process of multi-stakeholder dialogues and public
participation. Under the auspices of the IWRM SEA Project a number of
dialogues, meetings, trainings and workshops have been held with a DWR
Working Group and a range of other stakeholders engaged.
The National Water Resources Committee operates as the apex body and
involves a range of state representatives, academics, representatives from
river basin committees, as well as NGOs. It is seen by some as a good example
of a participatory multi-stakeholder process in developing national IWRM
strategy and has increasingly taken on board earlier criticisms (e.g. WaterAid
2005) by opening further stakeholder participation. While widely
acknowledged as having played a key role in the early history of pushing for
an integrated approach to water policy, questions have been raised as to the
extent to which participation of civil society allows for debate of major
conceptual issues, and for the framing of issues to be debated, and the
conclusions that are drawn (WaterAid 2005). Universities have been actively
involved in this process. At the national level the universities of Mahidol and
Thammasart are involved, while in the region, Khon Kaen and Mahasarkham
have been active in water resource issues, with Khon Kaen University
offering training in IWRM.
Wetland conservation and management has also been a high profile issue
in Thailand. While formally state responsibilities for wetlands conservation
and management lie under the jurisdiction of MONRE and Office of Natural
Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), there are also a
number of NGOs and universities involved in wetland management. The
national strategy for wetland management places improved public
participation as its main objective. Significantly in Thailand, which ratified
Ramsar in 1997, has established a National Wetlands Committee – under
ONEP also involves civil society representatives. Ramsar Convention has also
adopted an approach to wetlands conservation and sustainable use based
around a river-basin approach, thus bringing wetlands more in line with
IWRM approaches.
7.3.4 Civil Society
There is a great diversity of civil society organizations directly engaging in
water related issues in Thailand that represent a wide range of interests and
constituencies. Many local grassroots organizations are active in promoting
IWRM principles – and with a strong linkage with the TNMC – for example,
74
in Houay Sam Mor, Nam Poong, Songkhla Lake, Bang Pakong, Ping river
basins.
For example the Thailand Water Resources Association represents an effort to
establish a multi-stakeholder forum that involves representatives from state
agencies, river basin organizations and NGOs in advocating for the adoption
of a national water law.
Under the 1997 Constitution the legal process for establishing local non-
governmental institutions or associations, was simplified allowing District
Chiefs to approve registration. This has spurred the growth of a wide range of
local institutions, with many dedicated specifically to water resources, river
basin, wetland and environmental concerns.
Given its geographical location, Bangkok is home to the regional offices of
many international organizations including UN agencies (UNDP, UNEP,
UNESCAP, FAO) as well as some of the larger international NGOs (Oxfam,
CARE US, ActionAid, IUCN). A number of media based organizations are
also located in Thailand.
Thailand is also home to many of the private sector companies and
consultancy firms involved in infrastructure development, providing
technical advice (on areas such as EIAs etc).
7.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis
7.4.1 Relationships, Perceptions and Expectations
Stakeholder participation is already established as a high priority for
government agencies in Thailand that is expected to be reflected in all areas of
work. Much of the experience on stakeholder participation has come from
the water and natural resource sectors, and there is a long history of
developing participatory mechanisms for water resource management.
These are being further strengthened and there are many good examples of
local initiatives, and of working with the TNMC and other government
agencies. There is a frequently stated confidence in civil society being able to
lead dialogue processes themselves.
Policy and legal commitments towards stakeholder participation in Thailand
grew out of previous conflict between state, NGOs and local people, largely
around state-led infrastructure development projects. Stakeholder
participation is seen as necessary in order to ‘reach consensus and avoid
75
further conflict’. Conflict over hydropower projects has a long history in
Thailand and has spurred many local groups to action over the last 30 years.
Development of mainstream dams remains an issue of great concern, and
dominated much of the discussion in Thailand. The proposed dam in Ban
Kum is the most prominent of the planned dams. Many stakeholders raised
the issues of lack of information, no agency accountable – raises serious
questions about the quality of stakeholder participation in Thailand.
There is concern that despite policy commitments to participation in Thailand
the information on mainstream dams involving Thailand are not in the public
domain. That the MRC is not able to provide such information raises doubts
about the degree of recognition and influence the MRC has, or about its own
transparency and integrity.
Civil society organizations in Thailand are highly critical of matters of process
regarding participation. Civil society reluctant to participate in a ‘rubber
stamping’ process – and are suspicious of engaging in a process in which
the objectives are not clear, or when basic information is not available or
not acceptable.
With such high expectations from Thai civil society, it is perhaps not
surprising that several interviewees commented that the MRC still has not
established a strong relationship with civil society. But equally there is a high
degree of participation from many NGOs and local grassroots organizations
in many of the MRC activities in Thailand, including in the Sub-Area
Working Groups and public consultations. These include some of the more
radical NGOs and many of these have participated in regional MRC events at
the invitation of the TNMC. The TNMC has also established strong links with
emerging RBCs. These are interesting examples of the process by which
stakeholder participation can contribute to improved river basin
management, and the role that civil society can play in developing good
practice for the state to follow.
The MRC is relatively well known in Thailand but expectations of what the
MRC should be differ greatly. Many stakeholders expect a great deal from
the MRC and have expressed disappointment that it has not be able to
deliver, and that the MRC has not been able to be more proactive in leading
regional development according to objectives of sustainability and equity.
While the TNMC is active in many fields, the BDP is still not well understood
by all stakeholders.
76
There are several areas of criticism of the MRC that need to be considered.
The first of these relates to the availability, accessibility and acceptability of
MRC data and information. All stakeholders raised similar concerns – that
while the MRC has generated important and useful information in many
cases, much of the information within the MRC is not accessible. This recently
came to the fore in the case of the flooding of Northern Thailand towards the
end of 2008. This case also exemplifies the difficulties the MRC faces in
addressing its own institutional constraints in terms of information
dissemination, while meeting the expectations and maintaining relationships
with civil society organizations.
The perceived lack of expertise on social development and participation
within the MRC also led to suggestions for establishing a special unit within
MRC on social and stakeholder participation. Yet at the same time, experience
working in the Sub Areas and working directly with RBCs and civil society
organizations illustrates that there is a broad base of experience within the
TNMC itself. For example, the recent review of RBCs and the regional
symposium organisd by the TNMC and DWR again demonstrate the ability
to conduct critical research and bring together a broad body of civil society
actors.
During the national roundtable, there were many suggestions regarding the
BDP itself. As has been mentioned, the BDP is not well understood, even by
some stakeholders that have been involved in BDP 1. This is also partly a
matter of different expectations of what the MRC should be. In Thailand there
is less interest either from the state or civil society in the MRC playing a role
in mobilizing funding – as funding is less of a concern for Thailand. There is
far more interest in the MRC playing a leading role at the Mekong Basin
level of promoting an IWRM approach to planning which for many
stakeholders in Thailand amounts to establishing shared visions of future
development among different stakeholders. There is far less interest in the
BDP as a plan of projects to be funded.
There has been a clear call for the MRC to accept its past mistakes. Many
interviewees remarked that the MRC has failed to deliver, that people are still
poor and the MRC has little to contribute to what can be done.
There is a clear belief among Thai civil society that bringing local people,
NGOs and grassroots organizations into the development planning process
allows for improved development. Even state representatives admitted that
their agencies own mistakes of the past are largely due to not knowing
enough about local circumstances, not listening to people and not taking
their recommendations on board. From this perspective, stakeholder
77
participation is not just a matter of principle, but essential for effective
development.
The strength of local civil society organisations in Thailand is such that there
is confidence among state and CSO representatives that they are quite capable
of organizing their own forum, and that it is not necessary or desirable for the
MRC to take the lead. But it is also recognized that there is some value in a
relatively neutral organization taking on the facilitator role – such as a UN
agency, or perhaps Thailand Environment Instititue (TEI), National Human
Right Committee (NHRC) or Thai university.
A specific request is for the MRC and BDP to make its information available
for Thai stakeholders to use in their own existing planning processes. NGO
networks would be able to disseminate this kind of information for the BDP
and provide critical feedback.
Representatives at the national roundtable in Thailand made a clear
recommendation for some kind of forum at the regional level for civil society,
that should be independent of the MRC working according to its own agenda,
but able to contribute to the highest governance levels of the MRC.
7.4.2 Thailand Opportunities – Willing, Able & Allowed
7.4.2.a. From MRC perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Recognise the value of
stakeholder
participation and keen
to see improvements
Promoting an open-
ended dialogue
Willing to support
Considerable experience
within the TNMC of
stakeholder
participation for many
years
TNMC is engaged in
numerous
Initiatives
But still some issues of
limited technical
capacity across the
institution
Thai policy and
legislation clearly
requires a high degree
of stakeholder
participation in all
aspects of local
development, and at all
stages of project
development
No institutional
constraints but no
specific funding
available under current
budgets
78
7.4.2b. Civil society perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Civil society in Thailand
can be seen to represent
two positions – i.)
willing to engage with
MRC when the process
is led by civil society; ii.)
prepared to engage, but
to do so while
safeguarding their right
to be critical if necessary
History of involvement
with Mekong issues,
and ‘engagement’ with
MRC and other actors –
often from an advocacy
position, and hence
openly critical
Many strongly held
perceptions about the
MRC among many civil
society organisatons
NGOs want to be
involved in joint studies
and assessments
NGOs want to be
involved in capacity
building and training
activities on IWRM
Many civil society
organizations have
strong technical
capacity in a wide range
of fields, and thus
provide a potential
resource for the MRC.
Significant capacity in
social development and
public participation.
Grassroots
organizations have a
clear role for engaging
in local development
matters, but often less
technical capacity. This
can mean that there is
more space for
confusion. In order to
engage at this level
there is a clear need for
strategic
communications efforts
and awareness raising.
Strongest institutional
requirement for
stakeholder
participation.
Where there are
blockages at this level
largely in terms of the
financial resources that
would allow grassroots
organizations to engage
in a regular and
sustained manner with
the MRC. This might
require the MRC to
provide some financial
support for civil society
organizations to manage
themselves.
7.5 Recommendations (Thailand)
There is already a great deal of activity in Thailand on Mekong and water
resource issues. On the whole, the TNMC is actively involved in most of these
79
efforts, and plays a lead role in several itself. Yet there are many challenges in
Thailand. Civil society has a prominent established role and high expectations
of the MRC in terms of participation and accountability, with regional as well
as national interests. On the other hand there are also great opportunities for
the TNMC and for the MRC to work to address regional issues through
Thailand, while also being sensitive to national interests of the other MRC
countries.
MRC stakeholder participation in Thailand needs to be address all levels of
participation – from information sharing and consultation to the more
strategic and technical levels.
7.5.1 Relationship Building, Communications
There have been tensions and difficulties between the MRC and civil society
in Thailand but these are not insurmountable.
Despite efforts at communications and relationship building knowledge
about the MRC and the programmes needs to be improved. The BDP needs
to be able to present itself more clearly, and to be seen to be a programme
that is responsive to interests of civil society partners in Thailand. But with
a highly active civil society perhaps the greatest challenge facing the MRC in
Thailand is to convince stakeholders that the MRC has something to provide
that is worthwhile.
7.5.2 Engagement with Existing Initiatives
TNMC is already well represented in a number of existing initiatives – e.g.
TEI National Water Dialogues, and participates in events led by FER/TERRA.
There are clear opportunities for partnership around specific projects and
activities that are being led by NGOs, that BDP could become involved in
more proactively.
7.5.3 Dialogue and Consultation
A number of organizations could assist in all of these dialogue and
consultation activities including – the regional UN bodies (UNESCAP, UNDP
and UNEP), universities, NHRC and organizations such as TEI.
7.5.4 Civil Society led Opportunities
80
The TNMC and civil society organizations are equally confident that
stakeholder participation and consultation can be led by local stakeholders
themselves, and that there is no need for TNMC and MRCS to be in the lead
role. By giving civil society this kind of space the MRC would gain credibility
but there would still be an expectation that by doing so, the MRC would take
on board the concerns of civil society and become more proactive.
7.5.5 Public Consultation and Dialogue
The legal requirements for public consultation are clear in Thailand. It can be
expected that over the coming year, interest in Mekong water resources issues
particularly regarding mainstream dams will intensify. The lack of available
information on dam development in Thailand and on Thailand’s role in the
region is a raw issue that the MRC will certainly need to address. In many
ways, the MRC’s credibility is on the line and it will be judged by how it
performs in Thailand. It is expected that the TNMC will be able to coordinate
with government agencies, even though currently there is a great deal of
confusion as to the relative roles and responsibilities of government agencies
regarding mainstream dam development.
Public consultation on these kinds of issues will happen with or without the
BDP but it is important that these events are properly prepared, with good
information available in advance, and with participants fully aware of the
process in which they are involved.
7.5.6 Advisory Bodies
A number of options for Advisory Bodies have been discussed during the
consultancy. These could be established to provide general advice across the
board to the MRC, or based on specific MRC programmes. The management
of these bodies could also be independent of the MRC. But ultimately their
effectiveness and value will be seen in the extent to which the MRC is
accountable and responsive.
There is a clear recommendation for a Technical Advisory Body on Social
Development & Stakeholder Participation to be established in Thailand.
These are areas that are of paramount importance in Thailand, and areas that
all parties recognize need strengthening. The question for the MRC will be
whether such a body should be established exclusively for Thailand, or
whether it should be established at the regional level and/or within each of
the MRC countries.
81
7.5.7 People’s MRC
The potential for establishing a civil society-led MRC is strongest in Thailand,
with the TNMC and many organizations recommending such a move
themselves. Already several Mekong based networks are active – and while
many of the individual members are active in several of the networks, there is
still not one mechanism for bringing all the actors together. For such a
mechanism to have influence with the state and the MRC itself, there needs to
be good representation from a broad base of stakeholders.
The MRC could certainly play a role in facilitating the dialogue between the
likely organizers, but the full organization will need to be led by civil society
organizations themselves. The main attraction will lie in the MRC opening up
an avenue to senior decision making and senior level strategic planning.
7.5.8 Regional Visioning Exercises
The expectation of civil society in Thailand is that there is greater stakeholder
participation in shaping the long-term vision of the Mekong. Rather than
engaging in dialogues on specific projects –at the impact assessment stage
when there are already likely to be entrenched views and tensions between
stakeholder – the interest is in more focus on strategic visioning for river
basins, (eg Chi, Mun and Mekong), and at examining issues such as regional
energy development options. Again, by leading such exercises, or at least
playing a prominent role, the MRC will be able to enhance its profile and
credibility.
82
8. VIET NAM
8.1 Introduction and Overview
Viet Nam has a long history of promoting IWRM. However challenges remain
both in terms of the national policy and institutional context, and also in
terms of establishing effective river basin institutions. Initially 3 river basin
committees were established in the country (for the Mekong (Cuu Long), the
Dong Nai and Red (Thai Binh) but their performance has been subject to some
critical scrutiny recently (see Molle and Hoanh 2008). Coordination between
government agencies, particularly between MONRE and MARD has also
been a longstanding issue and is now being addressed in revised strategies on
river basin management. This has resulted in clearer roles and functions of
river basin and water resources management. Viet Nam also have decree on
river basin management, revised law on water resources, strategy on water
resources managementDespite the facts, the process of establishing IWRM in
Viet Nam is thus very much ongoing. The Viet Nam National Mekong
Committee can be considered as a River Basin Committee in the country.
Besides, there are also other forms of river basin committees in Viet Nam:
river basin council, river basin planning management committee, river basin
environment committee.
Viet Nam is changing in regards to stakeholder participation beyond the
water sector. As well as a large number of academic institutions and
research centres, and International NGOs that have been active in the
country for at least a decade, there is a relatively new phenomenon of local
NGOs and grassroots organizations.
Civil society is emerging in Viet Nam, with new local organizations being
formed within the last three years. These organizations are not well known
within the MRC and it was only possible to hold interviews with two of these
new ogranisations during this mission. But they represent an important
group of stakeholders – politically astute to be able to engage with a broad
range of stakeholders and facilitate dialogue, and technical capable, being
involved in a range of research efforts. They tend to have good regional and
international networks, and good relations with international donors.
Given the relatively small number of Vietnamese organizations – whether
NGOs or academic institutions – they tend to be well connected to local
stakeholders, as well as regional and international partners. As such they are
well-placed to support more extensive stakeholder participation whether in
consultation or assessment. Many of these organizations have direct
83
experience facilitating stakeholder dialogues and providing input into policy
making processes.
An important mechanism for exploring greater degree of stakeholder
participation from civil society is to be found in the coordination mechanisms
that donors and INGOs have established. INGOs are well established in Viet
Nam working closely with government agencies at different levels, and
working closely with international donors. There are a number of important
coordination mechanisms that have been established to assist coordination of
NGO efforts, to provide insight and advice to policy-making processes, and to
support donor harmonization efforts.
Equally there are a number of government-led coordination mechanisms
that bring government agencies, NGOs and international donors to ensure
more effective aid delivery, and to provide information generation
opportunities around specific issues of interest.
VNMC has very strong links with some key well respected Vietnamese
academic and research institutions, able to draw on a range of technical
experience and influence. But the experience of engaging directly with a
broad range of NGO stakeholders is rather limited, despite a clearly stated
enthusiasm to do so.
One of the challenges facing the VNMC is that many of the key local actors
are based in the Mekong Delta or the Central Highlands and were largely
inaccessible during this assignment.
8.2 Summary of Assignment in Viet Nam
The main emphasis on the analysis in Viet Nam was on identifying new
potential ways of working, and broadening the possibility of partners for the
MRC. The stakeholder analysis in Viet Nam involved a limited number of
direct interviewees over one week, specifically targeting the kinds of
stakeholders that have had only limited engagement with the MRC. These
included new local organizations and also representatives of the development
NGO community. A national roundtable was also held for the main
government members of the VNMC, as well as some of the main partners
from academia and research institutes, as well as representatives of INGOs. It
is clearly acknowledged that the team was not able to engage with the large
number of organizations active in Viet Nam and the large number of
organizations that have collaborated in different ways with the VNMC.
84
8.2.1 Summary of Viet Nam civil society organizations
Summary of Viet Nam civil society organization are presented in Annex IV (for
internal use only).
8.3 National Planning IWRM & Stakeholder Participation in Viet
Nam
8.3.1 National Development Planning
The main national planning mechanisms are socio-economic and sector
development plans (Poppe 2004). The Central government identifies visions
and strategies over a 10-year period (for example from 2001-2010). This
strategic direction is the basis for the Ministry of Planning along with line
ministries and provincial agencies to develop a Ten Year National Socio-
economic Development Plan, from which line ministries develop their own
Ten Year Sectoral Development Plan. These Ten Year master plans are the
basis for Five Year Socio-economic Development Plans - which is a medium
term plan prepared by the line ministries and the provinces, for achieving the
strategic objectives of the Ten Year Master Plan. Districts also prepare their
plans on socio-economic development in compliance with the provincial
plans. The Provincial Department for Planning and Investment is in charge of
faciliting this process of local planning.
At the local level, the Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) is the central
planning and implementation unit. The PPC is responsible for provincial
development planning and ensuring coordination between the line agencies.
Under this provincial planning framework districts prepare their own annual
work plans.
8.3.2 Water Resources
The Law on Water Resources (1999) established Vietnam’s framework for
instituting IWRM and approach to stakeholder participation. According to
Trang (2005) it presents a river basin approach to water resource management
‘which involves all stakeholders at national level and aims to strengthen
coordination between provinces among a river basin at local level’ (p. 2). But
for some observers this interest in stakeholder participation is primarily in
terms of the coordination of sectoral stakeholders of government agencies and
establishing the overall authority of MONRE (see Molle and Hoanh 2008).
The role of broader stakeholders in the process is less clear.
Institutional changes in 2007 mean that Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment (MONRE) has overall responsibility for water resources
85
management and oversees the VNMC and the Water Resource Management
Agency (WRMA). In this structure WRMA has responsibility for state
management on water resources including water resource planning in river
basins which includes water resource planning for the river basins, including
water use concept for the main river, water resource plan for each field, and
water resource protection and natural hazards preventions.
In the division of responsibilities between MONRE and Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), MONRE oversees MARD to set
up river basin planning. MONRE is a licensing authority for water use – but
water supply and irrigation are under MARD. Additionally hydropower is
under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Industry – but MONRE controls
authorization.
The Decree on Integrated River Basin Management (December 2008)
establishes River Basin Committees and River Basin Management Bodies,
and stipulates the creation of river basin plans – to include framework plans
(Gooch 2008), water allocation plans, water resources protection plans and
disaster mitigation plans. This Decree is a move to overcome some of the
earlier challenges facing RBOs that had been established in 3 main rivers.
Earlier reviews had suggested that these organizations had not been as
effective as planned (Gooch 2008), had not met regularly and had not
developed a strategic road map. This is attributed to their location in either
Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City. The scale of these river basins, working across
ministerial and provincial boundaries perhaps makes them unwieldy. In an
attempt to address these issues for example, the ADB is now supporting the
development of a simpler RBO committee structure in Vu Gia-Thu Bon river
basin in Quang Nam (Howell-Alipalo 2007).
Under the Decree the following existing institutionsare to be strengthened for
river basin management:
Cuu Long (Mekong) River Basin Planning Management Board;
Dong Nai River Basin Planning Management Board;
Vu Gia – Thu Bon River Basin Planning Management Board;
Vu Gia – Thu Bon River Basin Management Committee;
Cau River Basin Environmental Management Committee;
Srepok River Basin Council;
Viet Nam National Mekong Committee.
86
The role of stakeholder participation in river basin management has some
history. The Vietnam Water Resources Strategy (2020) (Decision 81/2006/QĐ-
TTg on 14 April 2006) recognizes the need for improved stakeholder
engagement and public participation. The Water Resources Strategy affirms
the rights of all organizations and individuals to ‘exploit and use water
resources….and also the responsibility to protect and develop water resources
in a sustainable manner’ and identifies as a solution, ‘To conduct
communication and education, raise public awareness and encourage
participation of communities’. It also highlights the importance of
scientifically-based information and analysis.
Under this strategy MONRE takes overall strategic lead with the Ministry of
Planning and Investment and the Ministry of Finance take the lead and
coordinate with MONRE in allocating budgets. The National Water Resources
Council (first established in 1999) and chaired by a Deputy of Prime Ministry
and Permanent Office is MONRE brings together members from different
ministries and provincial authorities and is responsible for advising the
government and Prime Minister and for ensuring effective coordination
between concerned ministries and authorities. The main focus on
participation is ensuring coordination between various government agencies,
and as yet there is no obvious participation from civil society.
Provincial People’s Committee is a key state actor at the local level,
responsible for overall planning and coordinating with various provincial
departments. At provincial level responsibility for water resource
management is spread among different government agencies:
Department for Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE) –has
responsibility for water resource management in general, licensing
authority, water resource monitoring.
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) have
responsibility for water supply and irrigation works.
Department of Planning and Investment has responsibility for
appraising financial projects.
Department of Industry has responsibility for hydropower
development.
Other provincial actors involved in water management include
Department of Science and Technology (DOSTE) and Department of
Health, Irrigation Division, Centre for Fresh Water and Sanitation
(DARD), Agriculture, fisheries and forestry fall under DARD.
87
At provincial level under MONRE, Division of Natural Resources and
Environment, Division of Environment (EIA, water pollution) and
Division of Land Use and Planning (land management).
At district level – Department of Economy (under the District People’s
Committee) responsible for water supply and irrigation works
management, the Irrigation Work Exploiting Company,(under
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development)the Water Use
Complex in the district, communes which deal with irrigation works,
irrigation works construction companies (private sector), hydropower
construction companies (joint-stock, private companies for small
hydropower projects.
Wetland management has also received attention from the government.
Vietnam has been a signatory to the Ramsar Convention since 1989. While
there is no specific legislation related to wetland management the Decision
No 04/2004/QD-BTNMT approved an action plan for conservation and
sustainable development of wetlands for the period 2004 – 2010.
8.3.3 Civil Society
Under the guidance of the Vietnamese state a number of mass organizations
operate, principally the Vietnamese Women’s Union, the Farmers’ Union, the
Youth Union and the Patriotic Front. The Decree 29 on Grassroots Democracy
in 1998, with the follow up Decree 79 in 2003 created the opportunity for local
groups to be established and to participate in local development in four key
areas – sharing information, providing comments, participation in decision-
making and monitoring (UN et al 2004). These often address local
development needs and are seen as partners to the state, allowing for greater
reach to local areas, being more innovative, adaptive and cheaper than state
agencies. With the state moving away from provision of some services, the
potential value of NGOs has been more readily acknowledged. The number
of these kinds of organizations is growing, with the majority appearing to
focus on education, raising awareness and disseminating information, and on
local development issues such as agriculture, savings etc. However there are
also a number of groups addressing environmental and water resources
issues (Aschoff 2008).
Participation from the VN NGO perspective
From Plan in VN (2007 p. 5)
An example of application of participatory principles in order to influence
national policy can be found in the series of Participatory Poverty
88
Assessments (PPAs) that were carried out by international NGOs (Oxfam,
Save the Children, ActionAid) in partnership with national and provincial
government agencies, donors, and local people. The intention was that these
assessments would create an integrated assessment of the factors leading to
poverty and thereby provide a mechanism for identifying solutions that
would meet poor people’s needs. In 1999, four large-scale Provincial PPAs
were carried out on the initiative of the World Bank, as a part of its 2000
World Development Report. Later on, for the early draft of the
Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS),
consultations in six Provinces were organised to get feedback from the poor.
In 2003, the consultations were expanded into 12 Provinces throughout
Vietnam with the objective of providing feedback from the poor people in the
implementation of the CPRGS.
A perspective on local participation is provided by PLAN in Viet Nam (2007
p. 5)
The Grassroots Democracy Decree was originally introduced in Vietnam in 1998. The
Decree emanates from Ho Chi Minh’s saying “the people know, the people discuss,
the people do and the people monitor”. It contains some specific indications of how
consultations with the people are to be carried out; through large meetings, through
direct contact, and by requesting written comments. The Decree can be seen as a
reflection of the government’s aim to promote people’s rights at the village and
Commune level. However, after nearly eight years of its promulgation, there have
been limited results in implementation. This is linked in part to lack of understanding
of officials at Commune and village level in terms of the policies they are assigned to
disseminate4. In addition officials have claimed to need more guidance on the
Grassroots Decree. In PPAs5 carried out by the World Bank, the officials also claimed
that the villagers were uninterested in the issues as an explanation to their low
attendance at meetings. Although these statements were partly corroborated by the
villagers, they also added that they perceived the chances of their voices being heard as
unlikely.
8.3.4 Water User Groups
The principle of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) has been adopted
by policy in Vietnam. There are examples of NGO supported projects
working with farmers and government agencies in establishing PIM and
water user groups. However, the performance, as elsewhere in the world, is
somewhat mixed.
8.3.5 Universities and Research Centres
89
Universities play an active role in national and local development in Vietnam,
include in water resources. The Water Resources University is based in Hanoi
but also has a campus in Ho Chi Minh City, with more than 1000 graduates
each year (Trang 2005).The Vietnam Water Resources Institute houses a
Participatory Irrigation Management Centre.
8.4 Discussion of Issues Arising from Stakeholder Analysis
The MRC has developed strong working partnerships with a wide range of
Vietnamese academic institutions. This has clearly produced considerable
benefits.
There is also an active civil society comprising international NGOs as well as
an emerging Vietnamese civil society with a small number of organizations
with a specialist interest in water resource management. These present huge
potential for future partnerships, particularly in terms of strengthening more
local level stakeholder participation, consultation and dialogue.
While stakeholder participation is clearly shaped by the policy and
institutional context of Viet Nam, many civil society organizations consider
the situation to be providing increasing space for engagement in a whole
range of issues. For INGOs and donor agencies, promoting civil society by
building the capacity of local organizations is a cornerstone of their support to
national development. There is good experience of participatory processes
contributing to national development policy, for example as seen in the
contribution of the PPA process since the late 1990s informing the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). The recognition of the importance of
participation and the opportunities that now exist is illustrated by the
establishment of the NGO Resource Centre Working Group on Public
Participation.
This trend represents a great opportunity for the MRC to strengthen its own
engagement in Viet Nam. At the moment the MRC is not well known among
civil society and there has not been any significant direct contact between
NGOs and VNMC. This is understandable given the rapid pace of change in
Viet Nam. But it is important
Water resources management and IWRM have been on the political and
national development agendas in Viet Nam for well over a decade with
numerous agencies becoming involved. Much of this effort has focused on the
national level policy context and establishment of large scale river basin
90
institutions. Stakeholder participation does not seem to have been well
addressed.
Water resources issues and the Mekong has re-appeared on the national
development agenda with growing concern over potential impacts of
climate change, particularly in the Mekong Delta. It may prove to be that
climate change is a more effective organizing theme for civil society
stakeholders to come together around the kinds of issues that are priorities
for the MRC in Viet Nam.
8.4.1 Viet Nam Opportunities – Willing, Able & Allowed
8.4.1.a. From MRC perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Agreed to revise
membership of National
Working Group and
Sub Area Working
Group to involve
broader stakeholder
participation
Record of working with
other organizations in
technical areas, and has
also established linkages
with CNMC and LNMC
to address cross-border
issues
There is limited
knowledge of the
broader context of civil
society in Viet Nam
MRC is located away
from the Mekong basin
– thus making it
difficult but not
impossible to have the
regular contacts and
strengthen relationships
with some of the local
partners
MRC has good working
links with research
institutes, universities
and associations such as
VACNE, REED and
NISTPASS
MRC is not visible or
well known in existing
civil society networks.
Building relationships
and understanding is
There are no obvious
institutional barriers to
working with registered
organizations including
some of the more
recently established Viet
Nam NGOs
Existing coordination
mechanisms could be
open to the VNMC to
build linkages and raise
the profile
91
starting from ground
zero
8.4.1.b. From civil society perspective
Willing Able Allowed
Generally willing to
engage with MRC
Generally supportive of
seeing a strong MRC
playing a more
proactive role as
generating information
and facilitation - in
national water resources
and at the regional level
Generally not aware of
the MRC structure,
functions, roles and
responsibilities – so not
able to engage easily at
present
Mixed technical
capacity. Some
established research-
based organizations
(often with a
relationship with MRC)
have strong technical
capacity in some areas.
NGOs have strong
capacity in facilitation,
dialogue, networking
and social development
Generally limited
capacity in IWRM – but
stronger in related
areas.
Key area of capacity in
facilitation and dialogue
– also key areas for
strengthening within
the MRC
No institutional barriers
to engaging with the
MRC
A recognized role for
civil society in assisting
the government in
implementing policy.
History of engaging in
policy debates, and in
facilitating dialogue
among diverse
stakeholders at national
and local levels.
8.5 Recommendations (Viet Nam)
The MRC is well known within a limited group of stakeholders with whom
there have been close working relations for a number of years. These are
92
largely research institutes that themselves have close links to the state. But
there is also a large NGO community that includes INGOs and a growing
number of local NGOs and grassroots associations. So far there has been only
limited, rather ad hoc engagement with this important group of stakeholders.
The most pressing initial challenge is to build a relationship with these kinds
of organizations, and in order to do so, to be able to present the MRC’s role,
functions and structure in a clear and comprehensible manner, as the basis for
discussing future engagement. While many organizations are based in Hanoi
much of this activity is based at the local level, particularly in the Mekong
Delta.
8.5.1 Relationship Building and Communications
While the VNMC has a long history of collaboration with a number of well
established research organizations and universities, there is no such history
with NGOs. This is of course partly due to the relatively recent emergence of
NGOs in Viet Nam. But as a result, the MRC is not well known in Viet Nam
and not readily identified as a key stakeholder in water resources and
development.
There are some relatively straightforward steps that the VNMC could follow:
VNMC should develop its own database of civil society organizations.
Much of the information is readily available from NGO coordination
mechanisms and from some of the larger organizations.
Begin a sustained effort at stakeholder analysis at national and Sub-
Area level. Such an effort should be led by the VNMC itself.
8.5.2 Building Relationships with key stakeholders
Currently the VNMC and some of the newer key stakeholders simply do not
know each other well enough. There are many areas of common interest and
potential for collaboration and partnership. The starting point for building
relationships would be in getting to know each other better, by presenting
and explaining each other’s work and identifying points of common interest.
This would require the VNMC to be proactive in visiting key stakeholders, in
making presentations on the MRC, and in preparing communications
materials. Equally the VNMC could gain a great deal from being more
directly involved at a programme manager level in the various coordination
and planning events on issues not directly related to IWRM but yet still
relevant.
93
8.5.3 Restructure the National Working Group and the Sub-Area
Working Group
During the consultancy there was broad agreement to revise the structure of
the National and Sub Area Working Groups. This may take some time and it
is therefore recommended that MRC begins with a round of relationship
building with key civil society organizations, and in order to prepare for this,
develops some basic communications materials explaining the MRC, MRCS,
VNMC and BDP – roles and functions, and spells out the space for
stakeholder participation in BDP working groups and activities.
8.5.4 Engagement with existing networks
VNMC should request presentation of BDP work to NGO coordinating
bodies and consider more regular engagement in these bodies – to discuss
how existing efforts of these working groups could contribute to.
8.5.5 National Advisory Body
There are several organizations in Viet Nam that could provide technical
advice within the framework of a National Advisory Body. Many of these
organizations are known but it is also recommended that the VNMC reach
out to the new NGOs in Viet Nam (e.g. VRN/WARECOD, CODE, PAN
Nature) and also build a link with the NGO Working Group on Public
Participation to further develop the opportunities for strengthening
stakeholder participation in Viet Nam.
8.5.6 National Technical Working Group
Currently there is no national mechanism for bringing a broad base of
stakeholders together around issues of IWRM. However, there is certainly
interest in such a body. But the MRC’s remit is somewhat limited in Viet Nam
to the Mekong basin, and there is a risk of encroaching on other institutions’
territory.
Climate change has very recently appeared as an area of real concern for all
stakeholders. This is very much related to water resource issues, and to the
Mekong Delta that is predicted to be vulnerable to dramatic impacts from
climate change. The potential for establishing a national working group
that is framed around climate change and the Mekong Delta, and in so
doing, opens up space for debate around water resource management (and
agriculture, migration, poverty reduction) should be explored.
94
SECTION III: Regional Stakeholders
9. REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
9.1 Introduction
The most consistent engagement with civil society has occurred with
international and regional organizations. Consequently these organizations
tend to be well known to the MRC. For the international organizations their
ways of working are similar to MRC and it perhaps appears most natural for
the MRC to engage with such similar organizations.
At the regional level there are also a number of INGOs and NGOs that are
active advocacy groups, often working with networks of national
organizations and grassroots groups.
In this section we provide a brief overview of a sample of these regional
organizations that include international research and development
organizations, international NGOs (national programmes of these NGOs are
covered in the national sections of this report), and universities with a
regional remit and that are involved in regional projects and networks, and
also regional projects.
9.1.2 Inventory of Mekong Basin & water resources related
stakeholders in the Lower Mekong Basin at local, national and
regional levels
Summary of CSOs in the LMB at local, national and regional levels are presented in
Annex VI (for MRC’s internal use only)
95
REFERNCES
Aschoff, N (2008) What Role Can Local NGOs Play to Support Grassroots
Democracy in Vietnam? The Example of the Vietnamese NGO CRP (available on
http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_14689-544-2-30.pdf)
Borzsony, P., and K. Hunter (1996) ‘Becoming a learning organization
through partnership’ The Learning Organization vol. 3(1) pp. 22-30
CDRI (2008) Framing research on water resources management and governance in
Cambodia: A literature review Working Paper 37 CDRI: Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Chanmarik, S. (2004) The Role of National Human Rights, Commission, Thailand.
National Human Right Commission: Bangkok, Thailand
Chanmarik, S. (2007) Community Rights in Global Perspective. National Human
Right commission: Bangkok, Thailand
Chantawong, M. (2002) Civil society participation in river basin planning: a
new blueprint? Mekong Update & Dialogue Volume 5, Number 2, April -
June 2002 Issn 1441-8355
Culture and Environment Preservation Association (2007) Sekong River-
Basedivelihood Study in Northeast Cambodia: Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Department of Water Resources Thailand (May 2007) Thailand National Report
IWRM Southeast Asia Project Southeast Asia Regional IWRM 2005 Meeting 11-
13 September 2006 Rayong Thailand
ESCAP (????) Good Practices on Strategic Planning and Management of Water
Resources in Asia and Pacific Water Resources Series No. 85 UNESCAP:
Bangkok, Thailand
Gooch, G.D. (2008) IWRM in the twinned Sesan and Tejo/Tagus basins, with focus
on water regimes in transboundary highly regulated rivers: identification of major
actors and relationships between them STRIVER Report WP6:1
Hirsch, P and K. Morck Jensen (May 2006) National Interests and Transboundary
Water Governance in the Mekong AMRC: Sydney
INGO (Dec 2008) Statement for the Viet Nam Consultative Group Meeting
96
Komany, S (2006) Report on the Implementation of the Lao WWSAP under IWRM
2005 SE Asia Southeast Asia Regional IWRM 2005 Meeting 11-13 September
2006 Rayong Thailand
Mahanty, S., Burslem, K. & Lee, E. (2007): A Fair Share? Experiences in Benefit
Sharing from Community-managed Resources in Asia (ISSB…974-537-988-3).
Summary Information of SNV activities 2008-2009. SNV, WWF and RECOFT:
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Miller, F & P. Hirsch (2003) Civil Society and Internationalized River Basin
Management AMRC Working Papers Series 7 AMRC, University of Sydney:
Sydney, Australia
Molle, F (2005) Irrigation and Water Policies in the Mekong Region: Current
discourses and practice IWMI Research Report 95 IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka
(43 pp)
Molle, F and C. T. Hoanh (2008) Implementing Integrated River Basin
Management: Lessons from the Red River Basin, Vietnam MPOWER Working
Paper MPOWER: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Nguyen-Khoa, S., & P. Chet (2006) Review Of Tonle Sap Built Structures
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) With Regard To Fisheries (Project
Report for the Technical Assistance to the Kingdom of Cambodia for the
Study of the Influence of Built Structures on the Fisheries of the Tonle Sap
financed by the Government of Finland) WorldFish Center: Phnom Penh,
Cambodia 38 pages
Pattanee, Surapol (Jan 2007) Thailand National Report IWRM 2005 IWRM
Southeast Asia Project
Perera, L.R. (2006) Factors affecting the formation of FWUCs in institution building
for PIMD in Cambodia: Two case studies. Working Paper 113. Colombo, Sri
Lanka:
International Water Management Institute
Plan In Vietnam (2007) Mapping Of Participatory Models Applied By NGOs
Towards Enhancing Grassroots Participation And Democracy
http://www.ngocentre.org.vn/files/docs/5september2007mappingofparticipatorymodel
s-1.pdf
Poppe, M (2004) Integrated Watershed Management Planning in the Lower
Mekong Basin: A Comparative Analysis of National and Local Planning
97
Systems in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnm Working Paper 11
MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme MRC: Vientiane, Lao PDR
Raks Thai (2005) Annual Report 2005. Raks Thai Foundation: A member of
Care International: Bangkok, Thailand
River Coalition in Cambodia (2008) Cambodia’s Hydropower Development and
China’s Involvement. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
SNV (2008) Sustainable Poverty Reduction: SNV Asia Regional Results and
Strategies 2007-2010. SNV: Vientiane, Lao PDR
Sovanna, Thach (2005) Summary Report on Integrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM 2005) Strategy and Roadmaps in Cambodia IWRM SE Asia
Project
Thai Environment Institute (2007) Annual Report 2007. Bangkok, Thailand
Truong thi Quynh Trang (2005) Water Resources Management in Viet Nam (http://www.khmerstudies.org/events/Water/Quynh%20Trang%20Nov%202005.pdf)
United Nations, Division for Public Administration and Development
Management (DPADM), Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
(2004) (Eds.): The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam – Public Administration
Country Profile.
WaterAid (2005) Study of National Water Sector “Apex” Bodies and Civil Society
Involvement in Asia: Summary of Thailand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka Case Studies
ADB: Manila
World Bank/Asian Development Bank (2006) Future Directions for Water
Resources Management in the Mekong River Basin (Mekong Water Resources
Assistance Strategy) WB/ADB